-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
- Thread starter maynerd
- Start date
- Status
Instigator
Banned
APF said:
OJ was also looking the real killers beyond the point most people acknowledge they wouldn't be found.
It doesn't mean there were real killers in the first place or that OJ believed it himself.
JayDubya said:
The low priority given to finding and securing weapons caches (and the scientists/engineers involved in the program) during the initial period, the lack of reaction when they turned up nothing, and the stonewalling of any investigation into the intelligence failure, to name three data points.
ElectricBlue187
Member
NO KIDDING
Mandark said:
Well you won't get too much argument for me on those. Personally, I think they're shitheels for trying to spin the casus belli. That's a big no-no in my book.
I can respect someone for admitting they're wrong a lot better than I can someone that stupidly insists they're infallible.
Instigator
Banned
APF said:
No, just your insinuation that because they were looking for them, they had to believe they were there. If the roles were reversed, you know you wouldn't let that type of flimsy front fly and you would grill any poster daring to suggest as such.
And most police investigations are standard procedures, with no high-stake, political implications that can undermine a whole government.
David Kay is an example of someone who seems to have really thought there were WMD's to be found. When he found that it wasn't the case, he said so, and acted concerned about how so many people were wrong.
I wouldn't have expected Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. to make the same level of public reversal. They're political figures, and can't really admit that they (or their boss) made a huge mistake.
However, I can't think of a single thing I've read that shows any of them privately demanding answers (or expressing shock) when no weapons were found, or treating this like a major snafu that needs to be prevented in the future. They didn't strike me as terribly surprised at the result.
I wouldn't have expected Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. to make the same level of public reversal. They're political figures, and can't really admit that they (or their boss) made a huge mistake.
However, I can't think of a single thing I've read that shows any of them privately demanding answers (or expressing shock) when no weapons were found, or treating this like a major snafu that needs to be prevented in the future. They didn't strike me as terribly surprised at the result.
Which is why I said, "consider," rather than, "the proof is:..."Instigator said:
Mandark: I'd argue the political landscape was such that any investigation into intelligence failures was inevitably spun into, "why Bush lied" (and arguments to disprove that idea) and not an honest appraisal of what really went wrong and why, since that wasn't adequate for the folks who share your personal ideological viewpoint of doing the most damage possible, damn truth, damn propriety, damn consistency, damn everything else. This, in combination with the fact that, once the government was toppled and the initial forays into discovery came up fruitless it began to dawn on everyone that perhaps they were drinking too much of their own Kool-aid, and that, once Iraq started turning into the clusterfuck it's been ever since, their inability to handle dynamic events--or workably-plan for their own perceived outcomes and goals--became readily-apparent, it's hard to read *anything* into your so-called "behaviorism" perspective, especially as limited as it is by your own desire to start from an end and work backwards from there (sounds familiar)
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
bill0527 said:
How about...
You were saying?
I'm saying you're trying to read too far into things and coming up with nothing ("it's possible there never was a reason"), when Occam's Razor applies quite well. I'm saying you're falling into the same trap as the Bush Administration when faced with evidence that conflicted with their conclusions.Mandark said:
They did and they did not. They were worried about creating a friendly ally in Iraq, and destroying terrorist havens, and yet "don't act like it" either. Again, you fail yourself by looking only at the pieces that support your conclusion, and not trying to take things as a whole, or from their perspective. You tend to display a general lack of empathy for people and ideas you don't already support however, so I do not expect this from you. Perhaps you could simply restate your original point a couple of hundred times instead, rather than try to move the conversation towards understanding.Mandark said:
I can't believe some are still ignorant to the fact that Iraq was for oil.
In fact, this law being pushed is for Iraq to surrender more than 80% of its reserves for foreign companies. It makes me think that this was the topic of conversation in Cheney's secret energy task force meetings. If not, why are they secret?
The intelligence was NOT faulty. The administration was simply selective to serve their purpose, with even having the audacity to sell the war to the UN with made up cartoons of chemical labs.
Their purpose? not fighting AQ, not avenging 9/11, not democracy in the region, not an imminent threat of WMD (inspectors were allowed back in, but Bush took them out), and it was definitely not love and compassion for the people in the region. It is sad that we were suckers for all their BS (most Americans), but they took advantage of our emotional state right after 9/11.
The only problem now is that Bush is so incompetent, that not even this puppet Maliki can get Iraqis together to ratify the oil law that Maliki was supposed to help pass. That is why neocons are terrified of a withdrawal. They know after it, Maliki's days are numbered, and they will no longer have control over which direction the Iraqi leaders should go regarding their precious oil. Neocons are not about to let this happen, so they resort to more fear mongering, and using our troops as tools (like in those shameful commercials still linking Iraq with 9/11).
In fact, this law being pushed is for Iraq to surrender more than 80% of its reserves for foreign companies. It makes me think that this was the topic of conversation in Cheney's secret energy task force meetings. If not, why are they secret?
The intelligence was NOT faulty. The administration was simply selective to serve their purpose, with even having the audacity to sell the war to the UN with made up cartoons of chemical labs.
Their purpose? not fighting AQ, not avenging 9/11, not democracy in the region, not an imminent threat of WMD (inspectors were allowed back in, but Bush took them out), and it was definitely not love and compassion for the people in the region. It is sad that we were suckers for all their BS (most Americans), but they took advantage of our emotional state right after 9/11.
The only problem now is that Bush is so incompetent, that not even this puppet Maliki can get Iraqis together to ratify the oil law that Maliki was supposed to help pass. That is why neocons are terrified of a withdrawal. They know after it, Maliki's days are numbered, and they will no longer have control over which direction the Iraqi leaders should go regarding their precious oil. Neocons are not about to let this happen, so they resort to more fear mongering, and using our troops as tools (like in those shameful commercials still linking Iraq with 9/11).
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
bill0527 said:
Nope, I just read it more thoroughly than you did, notice when DNO purchased the field?
2004/2005 (Therefore after the "regime change")
Also note that before the conflict, there wasn't a "a semi-autonomous area of northern Iraq." to buy it from.
travisbickle
Member
Bush doesn't know his arse from his elbow!
siamesedreamer
Banned
santouras said:
By that logic, it would have made a hell of a lot more sense to invade Canada:
travisbickle
Member
siamesedreamer said:By that logic, it would have made a hell of a lot more sense to invade Canada:
That's imported oil! You import more oil from the guys next to you then you do from the guys half way round the World, still Iraq has a lot of oil, and a lot of control over the market.
APF said:
It seems apparent to anyone that isn't a troll and/or loyal Bush supporter that this "war" in Iraq was a money-making operation from day one. Whether this money come from oil or from contracts, the capitalistic endeavors of the government are at the forefront of the reasons for "war." To suggest that this "war" was a genuine act to combat terrorism and/or to "free" the Iraqi people is ridiculuous, especially when the overwhelming evidence proves the contrary.
travisbickle said:
OPEC controls the oil market. No one else even comes close. If the U.S. was trying to control the worldwide market for oil, we'd be hearing a lot more from OPEC. As it stands, their little cartel is still pretty comfortable. Still, if the U.S. were either directly or indirectly trying to get oil from Iraq, then gas prices would not have risen at such a massive rate over the last few years. We'd be getting more supply and gas prices should have actually gotten lower.
CHYME said:
I see what you did there.
The exact same thing that neocons did to liberals by claiming that if you don't agree with them, that you're unpatriotic.
So basically, if you don't buy into the whole 'oil war' machine, then you're an idiot.
Well the fact is, the U.S. is no closer to controlling the world's population of oil since the invasion than they were before it. Our oil supplies have not went up. The amount we're importing from different countries has remained steady over the last few years. We're paying more for oil now because its much higher on the open market due to the rising economy in China and the ensuing demand. If anybody should be invading countries for oil right now, it should be China.
It depends on your definition of we. The american public or govt isn;t getting an ounce of that oil. American corporations on the other hand are getting all the oil contracts, as opposed to russia before the war. Putin might be a facist dick, but atleast he is doing russia a favor, as opposed to bush who is only doing american corporations a favor.bill0527 said:
bill0527 said:
Let me put it this way: If you think that this "war" was a genuine act to combat terrorism and/or to "free" the Iraqi people (especially the latter), then yes, you are an idiot (I guess you like this word more, since I was fine with calling it ignorance and naivete). If that's not what you're saying, you have no worries.
And by the way, challenging someone's patriotism during "war" is far more consequential (and much less fair) than calling someone a troll on a message board.
- Status