so, it's official now

[bishop]

heh.. oppressive and sadistic.. we know that game pretty damn good ourselves. we torture, bomb civilians, and not we're thinking about setting up death squads. not to mention royally fucking up a country on a *whoopsie*. oh what good guys we are.

[rez]

Quote by: RickSp The claims about WMD started in 1998 (!) three years before 9/11. In a letter to President Clinton a group of New American Centurians including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard L. Armitage, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams among others warned that it was essential that the US attack Iraq because of Saddam's WMDs. PNAC letter to President Clinton And if we are considering the neo-cons' greatest hits, here is Ken Adelman's Cakewalk In Iraq.

HAHHAHA are you saying America went to war with Iraq because of itell from 1998? Thats fucking great man.....

also what does WMD in 98 have to do with 9/11 when its been prooven Iraq and Osma have nothing to do with each other?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval Yes, you're right, it's all my fault that we went to war and our soldiers died. Saddam lieing, stealing, and breaking his cease fire agreements had nothing to do with it at all... :rolleyes:

Please don't put words in my mouth, and don't lie. I didn't say it was all your fault, did I?? But it's partly your fault, and I for one would like you to publicly take some responsibility for it.

"Saddam lieing, stealing, and breaking his cease fire agreements had nothing to do with it at all... "

Finally you've gotten something right. The war was all about WMD's, read the Bush speech he gave in Cincinnati (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html). You continue to try and shift the cause of the war. Every time your justification is discredited, you come up with a new one. If "lieing" (sic), stealing, and breaking agreements were really justification for an invasion, U.S. Marines would be storming Washington DC right now. Bush has done them all. If there was a cabinet position for ChickenHawk General, you'd have my vote.

[rmnunez]

"Cuando el rio suena, agua lleva" (when the river makes noise, its the water), if there was all this documentation going back forever suggesting, but never unquestionably confirming anything, something was going on, just not at the level believed.

I do believe there was a monumental intelligence failure, and not just by the US in appraising the Iraqi threat. I think Iraq was a threat, but not as great as suspected. I wonder how this would ideally be handled. Acknowledging the error seems like a good idea, maybe this could be done by exposing some of the intelligence which was misread and this way others, who incidentally, are not intelligence analysts, would be able to determine the magnitude of the gringoes' mistake. It might help the US avoid blundering into something like this again and could certainly prevent incautious governments from splashing around in ways that make the US suspicious..

[Zeebadee]

You keep referring to this as a "monumental intelligence failure". I don't agree with that characterization at all. I believe that Bush went into Iraq in spite of his intelligence briefings, and that the Intel Community took the rap when the "liberation" didn't go as smoothly as predicted. I think Bush ignored the intelligence, and did what he wanted to do since his initial inauguration, invade Iraq.

He sent Colin Powell to the UN with claims of "proof" of Iraqi WMD's. Not just evidence of them, but proof! Intel by itself isn't proof. So where is this proof? What's been released by this administration to back up this claim of proof? A couple of scratchy recorded phone conversations?

If our intel was so bad, and was truly the instigating factor for this war, then why has George Tenet, Director of the CIA, been awarded the Medal of Freedom?? What a crock, this war has been a shame since the day it started. Every aspect of it has been staged from day one.

[rmnunez]

Zee, you think the intelligence was concocted, I don't. I think it was likely exagerated, that plausible alternative explanations were not as exhaustively investigated, that contrary indications may have been disregarded, but not that phony intelligence was crafted to justify the claims.

I don't know that Bush sought to invade Iraq since his first-term inaugural, you think so. I can't prove he didn't have that intent, can you prove he did? Studies at think-tanks long ago suggest there was awareness of the problem posed by Saddam from the outset, but there was no regime change. I don't subscribe to the notion powerful conservatives sought intervention so they installed Bush to do it. Who would these awesome and omnipresent conservatives be? So its a hillarious "vast right-wing conspiracy" again?

The suggestion its some vast right wing conspiracy to intervene has been made before, the motivation suggested has also been ridiculous: Plots hatched by Hitler himself with Bush's ancestors, blood-lusting vengance for Saddam's prior attempt on Bush Sr., peculiarly Texan oil greed, and even born-again messianistic zeal are offered by some. I've looked into them evidence profered to sustain these views and have found none withstand scrutiny.

The real reason for intervention is a combination of features of Iraq; a) ruled by a tyrant, b) engaged in genocide, c) aggresive towards others, d) substantial military forces, e) next to established terrorist environs, f) serious human rights concerns, g) attacking US military forces, and h) possession of strategically vital natural resources. If one adds the suspicion, albeit unfounded (unless this was known to be false) that Iraq had WMDs or was trying to obtain them, coupled with uncertainty over the level of terrorist relations with the regime, then it sure seems Iraq was more than ripe for intervention. I don't think waiting any longer would have improved the balance (but figure the uncertainty over WMDs would remain regardless).

[Zeebadee]

I don't think the intel was concocted. I think the intel was right on. I don't believe that the true intel has ever been released to the public. I think it was ignored, and the Great Liberation was initiated. When it didn't go as planned, and Bush wasn't welcomed as the Great Liberator, someone had to take the blame. Intel merely took the rap, it was the easiest and most defendable of any that might be pushed into the spotlight. After all, who's in a position to cut their funding, or identify individual responsibility, or otherwise punish them for their failure?

If intel was so bad, and the shortcomings of the CIA so evident, then why was the Director of the CIA awarded the Medal of Freedom??

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop big surprise here

I have already written (several times) what U.S. entered Iraq for :
- economy
- intelligence and military
- oil
- marketting

I really "admire" people who believe whatever a government may say.
For some, it will take ages (or it never happens) till people understand what politics is all about.
Nobel for you, guys.
Discipline : Longevity

[rmnunez]

I got the idea on intel taking the rap, it looks like they did, but you maintain they provided "true" intelligence which has been concealed from the public. Presumably this intelligence would have documented the way things really were (no WMDs, nukes nor efforts to get them).

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez I got the idea on intel taking the rap, it looks like they did, but you maintain they provided "true" intelligence which has been concealed from the public. Presumably this intelligence would have documented the way things really were (no WMDs, nukes nor efforts to get them).

Yup, that's what I think. Why else would Bush give the highest civilian honor to Tenet, if the intel was really erroneous? Tenet took the rap, and Bush gave him the medal to keep him quiet.

[rmnunez]

So then shouldn't there be some unquestionable evidence the intelligence proffered by Bush not only came from some non-vetted source, but also was somehow changed? It wouldn't do to show the CIA or whatever had discounted the centrifuge theory, one would need to show that the basis for it was falsely implanted in the first place and then altered to seem worse by some ultra-secret intelligence operation inserted into the Cabinet process.

[Pooeypants]

Mmmm, so many apologists here. Instead of blaming the Commander in Chief and his cabinet that pushed for the war based on the "apparent" proof of Iraq's WMD capability, we turn to the intelligence services who weren't the ones that exaggerated reports and misled the public.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dieval Yes and I remember how Iraq now has ~1200 less insurgents/terrorists now...heh, go figure... :p

That must be why General Abizaid said there were 5,000 insurgents a year ago and 20,000 now. That crazy Middle Eastern math - kill five insurgents (three of which happen to be innocent bystanders) and you create ten new jihadis and/or nationalists.

[bishop]

Quote by: Rainbow I have already written (several times) what U.S. entered Iraq for : - economy - intelligence and military - oil - marketting I really "admire" people who believe whatever a government may say. For some, it will take ages (or it never happens) till people understand what politics is all about. Nobel for you, guys. Discipline : Longevity

i definitely have the upmost respect for people who would accept a politician lying to the country to achieve his own agenda - even if that includes sending us into a bogus war. this isn't about understanding realpolitik, it's about basic ethics which seem missed on you.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee But it's partly your fault, and I for one would like you to publicly take some responsibility for it.

How on Earth do you think this is partly my fault? Did I force Saddam to lie to UN inspectors? Did I force him to give the impression to the world that he still had WMD's? That I still believe it's a good idea, regardless of not finding the large stockpiles of WMD's, that we removed him from power?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dieval How on Earth do you think this is partly my fault? Did I force Saddam to lie to UN inspectors? Did I force him to give the impression to the world that he still had WMD's? That I still believe it's a good idea, regardless of not finding the large stockpiles of WMD's, that we removed him from power?

You neocons are unbelievable. Saddam said he had destroyed his WMD. What part of that is a lie? Guess what, the world believed him. It was only in the US where the neocon lies were finally taken as gospel that we launched into a needless war that we are now losing. And sure getting over ten thousand Americans killed or maimed, butchering tens of thousands of civilians, setting up a an American Gulag, supporting torture, yah all great ideas.

And all of this is Saddam's fault. Yah right.

[Dieval]

Quote by: RickSp You neocons are unbelievable.

What's with the labels? There seem to be a couple of people around here that can't get through any posts without slinging labels around here....

Quote by: RickSp Saddam said he had destroyed his WMD. What part of that is a lie? Guess what, the world believed him. It was only in the US where the neocon lies were finally taken as gospel that we launched into a needless war that we are now losing. And sure getting over ten thousand Americans killed or maimed, butchering tens of thousands of civilians, setting up a an American Gulag, supporting torture, yah all great ideas. And all of this is Saddam's fault. Yah right.

The UN didn't even believe he'd destroyed his stockpiles....please reference the whitehouse speech Zeebadee posted earlier -

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." ..... 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.

[RickSp]

The Whitehouse speech you quote turned out to be factually wrong on every point, except that Saddam was a really bad guy.

The Blix report, delivered one month before the US invasion, said that they had found no WMD, had gotten better but not complete cooperation from the Iraqis and that some stocks had not been properly accounted for. For virtually everyone except the US and Britain this was an argument for futher inspections. The US took it as an excuse for launching a war of choice.

Perhaps if further inspections had been allowed the final descrepancies in the figures could have been straightened out. But, as the Bush administration was committed to go to war regardless, it might not have mattered. WMD was just an excuse and as it turns out, not a particularly good one.

[Dieval]

Quote by: RickSp The Whitehouse speech you quote turned out to be factually wrong on every point, except that Saddam was a really bad guy. The Blix report, delivered one month before the US invasion, said that they had found no WMD, had gotten better but not complete cooperation from the Iraqis and that some stocks had not been properly accounted for. For virtually everyone except the US and Britain this was an argument for futher inspections. The US took it as an excuse for launching a war of choice. Perhaps if further inspections had been allowed the final descrepancies in the figures could have been straightened out. But, as the Bush administration was committed to go to war regardless, it might not have mattered. WMD was just an excuse and as it turns out, not a particularly good one.

Blix wasn't the only inspector, maybe the most outspoken against the war, but definitly not the only one...and apparently some believed Saddam was still producing and hiding WMD's....
There were also other points outlined in Deulfers reports where we have found weapons and related programs that were CLEARLY in violation of UN resolutions. They've also found his intent was clear. Lift the sanctions then restart WMD programs... Not dealing with him now just postpones the inevitable. Had we waited another 10 years, with the sanctions possibly lifted, he could have had REAL WMD's and been able to inflict massive casualties to our troops..would that have been a better option?

[Livemike]

Quote by: BloodEagle perhaps the US was mis fead information by Iraq in an attempt to creat international unrest? and lack of faith in the US government?

Traditionally regimes spread disinformation that is _less_ likely to get them invaded and their principals killed.