President Bush, been interpreted on his new public relations offensive, trying to justify the current situation in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqbushattacks
AFP said:
-
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 "US is in Iraq because of attacks on US"
- Thread starter Zaptruder
- Start date
- Status
President Bush, been interpreted on his new public relations offensive, trying to justify the current situation in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqbushattacks
Templar Wizard
Member
if they keep saying it enough, people will start to believe it/not care anymore.
look at the WMD's and imminent threat issues...
i dont think anyone, even on the far right, believes 100% on the reasons for war given by the 'coalition of the willing', but no one seems to really care anymore.
look at the WMD's and imminent threat issues...
i dont think anyone, even on the far right, believes 100% on the reasons for war given by the 'coalition of the willing', but no one seems to really care anymore.
Jacobi said:
Seriously this doesn't make any sense
It is absurd isn't it... but why hasn't anyone called for his impeachment? I don't know. Most likely because the democrats aren't in power in any part of the government. If they were at the congressional level, then this guy would've been impeached long ago.
Tyranny of the majority and two party systems and all that.
Why aren't the Democrats jumping up and down screaming...
#1. We weren't attacked by Iraq.
#2. There has never been a direct connection made between 9/11 and Iraq.
God and the majority of f*ckin active voters voted this asshole back in office... I just cannot believe it... <bangs head against desk>
You people are actually going to comment/debate/aknowledge this?
Noone gives a fuck anymore, we'll just nod our heads and accept it. They can say we went there to exterminate the flying walruses, we'll just do the same. And if we don't believe it, it doesn't make a damned difference anyway. So whats the point? We go through this several times a month. They know noone gives a fuck, and they exploit it. Good for them. WHat are you standing up for? The truth? Noone cares about something as trivial as that.
Noone gives a fuck anymore, we'll just nod our heads and accept it. They can say we went there to exterminate the flying walruses, we'll just do the same. And if we don't believe it, it doesn't make a damned difference anyway. So whats the point? We go through this several times a month. They know noone gives a fuck, and they exploit it. Good for them. WHat are you standing up for? The truth? Noone cares about something as trivial as that.
Almighty_Chocobo
Member
DarienA said:
What he said...
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
GOP logic 101: There are terrorists associated with Al Qaeda in Iraq NOW. This means the statement "Is there a connection between Iraq and the 9/11/01 terrorist strikes?" is TRUE, and therefore going into Iraq is justified.
The mind boggles.
The mind boggles.
ToyMachine228
Member
Zaptruder said:
You can't just impeach a President because you don't like him, or what he's doing. He basically has to do something that is beyond absurd. Like Clinton being impeached for lying under oath...But that wasn't enough to kick him out of office. Bush would have to do something extremely bad to get himself impeached.
The only other case of impeachment was...Johnson I believe? After the Civil War. He just vetoed everything to be a dick. Congress was attempting to fix everything after the Civil War, and grant african americans more rights, and stuff like that, but Johnson just kept vetoing. But Congress overrode the vetos for the most part, and eventually impeached him. I'm not sure if he was actually removed from office or not.
Zaptruder said:
That's exactly the reason, though there are efforts to make a case. I'm surprised no one mentioned Rep. John Conyers forum on the Downing Street Memo on this board last week. He brought in a petition signed by 88 representatives and half a million citizens (I'm one of those).
I've also heard Air American hammering on the memo and it's finally beginning to penetrate mainstream media. Bush won't be impeached tommorrow or possibly ever, but some our beginning to open their eyes.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Slurpy said:
A passion for apathy. Interesting.
Christoff Yurievich
Member
isn't that a Rage Against the Machine lyric?McFly said:
and is that govtrak thing for real? that's just crazy...and it's a democrat who started it! wtf man, wtf.
well no shit Sherlock. I wonder why?
Spike Spiegel
Member
Awww, you guys... :lol
With this address, President Bush is seeking to justify our reasons for staying in Iraq now, to an American public that's stupidly screaming "cut and run!" already and with increasing fervor. He isn't trying to justify our reasons for going to war in Iraq in the first place, and nowhere in that article do I see him claiming "Iraq attacked us on 9/11."
Now, say what you will about President Bush using Iraq as a war zone...
With this address, President Bush is seeking to justify our reasons for staying in Iraq now, to an American public that's stupidly screaming "cut and run!" already and with increasing fervor. He isn't trying to justify our reasons for going to war in Iraq in the first place, and nowhere in that article do I see him claiming "Iraq attacked us on 9/11."
Translation: We've purposely made Iraq the frontline in our War on Terror to draw our enemies there, where they can fight our military and democracy on foreign soil, instead of here in the US where your lives and comfort would be in danger and our efforts in fighting terrorists would largely be reactive.
Now, say what you will about President Bush using Iraq as a war zone...
Spike Spiegel said:
That's all well and good but let's be real... Al Qaeda operatives aren't going to Iraq to fight the US military. Terrorists don't fight conventional wars.
Don't you normally go to war against the folks who attacked you?
ge-man said:
Umm...it was posted in the forum. No one cared though...
http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=50321&highlight=downing+street
fortified_concept
Banned
Spike Spiegel said:
There are 2 things wrong about your post:
1) If you think that by killing thousands just to take over a country and make it your battleground so that you can avoid attacks on your own soil is smart or moral, then you have to recheck your facts or morals. The war in Iraq has made Al Queda stronger than ever.
2) I don't think that just because one cell of Al Quaida is busy in Iraq all the other cells will go inactive. Al Queda isn't an army. It's different groups scattered all over the world completely independent from each other.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
After September 11, our political leadership determined it was no longer tolerable to allow Middle East dictators to continue as rogue states and virtual belligerents.
And if you want to impeach President Bush for attacking a country without provocation, you would have to have wanted to impeach President Clinton as well. When did Serbia attack us? In fact, President Clinton didn't even attempt to get authorization from Congress or the UN. But he was right, and all the Muslims in Kosovo sure are glad he did what he did.
And if you want to impeach President Bush for attacking a country without provocation, you would have to have wanted to impeach President Clinton as well. When did Serbia attack us? In fact, President Clinton didn't even attempt to get authorization from Congress or the UN. But he was right, and all the Muslims in Kosovo sure are glad he did what he did.
Guileless said:
Oh boy, the "Clinton did it!" defense. That's nice, but you know what? We're talking about Bush right now. If you'd like to cling to the actions of a man who hasn't been in the White House in five years, be my guest, but at least have the common courtesy to start a seperate thread on the issue.
But unlike Serbia, where the justification - the need - for intervention was apparent to anyone who bothered to pick up a paper, the reasons we deposed Saddam aren't so clear. In fact, they were cherry-picked, manipulated, and possibly fed to Congress in such a manner to deceive them.
That's where the call for impeachment comes from.
Ned Flanders
Banned
Spike makes valid points. He's not implying that Iraq attacked us on 911, only that we picked Iraq as our baiting point..at "stopoff" if you will, for Al Qaeda to strike back at the US, only now the battle is waged against our men in uniform and not plainclothes citizenry. It is the Iraqi citizenry who've been chosen to suffer in our stead.
I find the admission stunning in a way. While I'm sure we've all considered the implications of Iraq being a "second front", it has never been so plainspokenly illustrated that the war was meant to serve this function by those who initiated it. The justification always had to do with liberating the Iraqis from oppression and suffering (I won't even mention the sham that was WMD) which ironically, we've now doubled by luring rogue terrorists into the country. At least before the war, Iraqis knew their enemy, now they're fighting infiltrators who attack in secrecy and destroy from within. Perhaps the consequences for Americans on our soil would have been more dire had we not engendered conflict elsewhere, but surely those responsible for stiring up this conflict have to now take credit for the Iraqi blood (and the blood of American soliders) they've deemed sacraficial for our domestic peace.
Of course there is also the greater philosophical issue of the Bush administration admitting to using diversionary tactics..something they've not been known for since taking office..
I find the admission stunning in a way. While I'm sure we've all considered the implications of Iraq being a "second front", it has never been so plainspokenly illustrated that the war was meant to serve this function by those who initiated it. The justification always had to do with liberating the Iraqis from oppression and suffering (I won't even mention the sham that was WMD) which ironically, we've now doubled by luring rogue terrorists into the country. At least before the war, Iraqis knew their enemy, now they're fighting infiltrators who attack in secrecy and destroy from within. Perhaps the consequences for Americans on our soil would have been more dire had we not engendered conflict elsewhere, but surely those responsible for stiring up this conflict have to now take credit for the Iraqi blood (and the blood of American soliders) they've deemed sacraficial for our domestic peace.
Of course there is also the greater philosophical issue of the Bush administration admitting to using diversionary tactics..something they've not been known for since taking office..
Guileless said:
As xsarien noted, Clinton is a whole other bag of chips. Moreover, there is increasing evidence across the board that this administration specifically attacked Iraq under false pretenses. Whether that be Herskowitz's taped audio conversations with then Governor Bush in 1999 unveiling his plans to attack Iraq if given the opportunity, the Downing Street Memos, or the increasing number of former government and international figures that are speaking out and outlining the hasty pressure and coercion this administration used to oust dissenters and forge a false case against Iraq.
It's also worth noting we did bring impeachment charges against Clinton -- namely for lying about an extramarital affair. Under Constitutional law, as noted by Constitutional Attorney John Bonifaz, if the DSMs and other evidence against Bush hold true, he's far more liable to be brought up against impeachment charges. It's evident that this administration, while fortunate enough to hold majorities and influence for such matters not to come up formally (unless the public rallies behind such manuevers), is fearful that the allegations may come out, as evident by their attempts to belittle the DSM hearing last Thursday by calling 11 consecutive floor votes.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I'm not using the "Clinton did it!" defense. My post clearly states that President Clinton was right to intervene in Serbia. I'm pointing out the logical inconsistency of calling for Bush's impeachment and not Clinton's if the reason is "illegal/unprovoked military action." If you're against non-UN sanctioned military action against countries that have not attacked US soil and believe it to be an impeachable offense, then you must have called for the impeachment of President Clinton as well as President Bush.xsarien said:
Tell that to GAF mascot Michael Moore, who ardently opposed the bombing campaign against Serbia. And all of the paleo-conservatives who also opposed it. And the United Nations. And the European Union. There was no consensus for military action when President Clinton ordered it. In fact, it was by far the most politically courageous decision he made while in office. The reason people forget about the controversy is because it was completely succesful in ending the war and, miraculously, did not cost a single American life.
Nerevar, please enlighten me.
Guileless said:
And assuming everyone who calls for Bush's impeachment would not have called for Clinton's on the same issue is a pretty weak starting point. But the difference between the two situations is vast, and simply not as simple as "both disregarded the United Nations." That's not why people are calling for Bush's impeachment. People want Bush impeached because his administration likely fabricated the evidence and reasons for a military strike (not actively striking down links between Saddam and 9/11, sometimes encouraging it; actively looking for reasons to not only justify a military strike, but also make it legal; never being quite up front with the Congress, let alone the American people about how long this operation will take, etc.
What was going on in Serbia was real, and made Iraq look like Candyland.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Guileless said:
i'm sorry but where the reasons for "helping" out the muslims in serbia made up? was intelligence cooked up? did we decide back then ahead of time to bomb serbia back to the stone age? did we get international support from NATO? (however dubious the reasons were) and dictators? HA!
Inconsistencies???
We decide to go to war with Iraq because it's a threat to national security with its WMDs. Well North Korea has nukes that can hit the entire western sea board, and probably the whole of the US. If we were going to take out anyone that was an imminent threat to national security they should be it.
Ok we went to war to overthrow an evil dictator that supports terrorism. Um Iran is a much bigger threat and again we have more proof that they are indeed pursuing WMDs, by their own admission. We should've gone to war with them if this was the reason.
Ok we went after terrorists. Well Saudi Arabia was a much bigger proponent and breeding ground for terrorists and their supporters (until Iraq became the terrorist disneyland). So we should've taken them out or at least Syria or Iran.
Ok then we went to save the people. Um...Darfur?
So why did we go to war, these were all reasons that the Bush administration stated at some point or another. And none of these would point to Iraq being the first target. I'm not against Bush going against the UN, I think that's as silly and inconsequential as the UN itself, I am against us going to war where reason points that if we were to wage war we should've done it elsewhere.
We decide to go to war with Iraq because it's a threat to national security with its WMDs. Well North Korea has nukes that can hit the entire western sea board, and probably the whole of the US. If we were going to take out anyone that was an imminent threat to national security they should be it.
Ok we went to war to overthrow an evil dictator that supports terrorism. Um Iran is a much bigger threat and again we have more proof that they are indeed pursuing WMDs, by their own admission. We should've gone to war with them if this was the reason.
Ok we went after terrorists. Well Saudi Arabia was a much bigger proponent and breeding ground for terrorists and their supporters (until Iraq became the terrorist disneyland). So we should've taken them out or at least Syria or Iran.
Ok then we went to save the people. Um...Darfur?
So why did we go to war, these were all reasons that the Bush administration stated at some point or another. And none of these would point to Iraq being the first target. I'm not against Bush going against the UN, I think that's as silly and inconsequential as the UN itself, I am against us going to war where reason points that if we were to wage war we should've done it elsewhere.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
ronito, the reasons to invade Iraq were a complex interaction between historical factors, present conditions, and practicality. Sweeping foreign policy decisions that cost untold treasure and lives aren't based on single sentence conditions with yes or no answers.
Do y'all think that the Bush administration knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, knew Saddam had completely abandoned the ambition to ever get them in the future, fabricated evidence to the contrary, and consciously lied about it? And have no intention of leaving Iraq a better place than it was before the invasion but are principally concerned with stealing oil and paying Halliburton?
If I believed all of that I would agree with you that he should be impeached. But unless I'm missing something, to believe all of that requires assumptions that I'm not willing to make but people who hate Bush readily do because it confirms what they already think.
Do y'all think that the Bush administration knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, knew Saddam had completely abandoned the ambition to ever get them in the future, fabricated evidence to the contrary, and consciously lied about it? And have no intention of leaving Iraq a better place than it was before the invasion but are principally concerned with stealing oil and paying Halliburton?
If I believed all of that I would agree with you that he should be impeached. But unless I'm missing something, to believe all of that requires assumptions that I'm not willing to make but people who hate Bush readily do because it confirms what they already think.
Guileless said:
That's the problem. So many pro-war peopel think that everyone thinks that anyone's that's against the war think's that it's all for Haliburton and oil (and frankly after seeing some posts on this forum I can see how you'd make that argument).
However, I don't believe that the Bush admin is dumb enough to do it for oil or haliburton. If that were case, then there are much better places to do that. My point is that this war is indicative (perhaps symptomatic is a better word) of incredibly poor planning and strategy on behalf of the Bush admin. I realize that there are many facets to make the decision and it cannot be a simple yes or no question. However, in my work we sit down and think about our upcoming project and weigh them out and discuss all possibilities, if there's someone who disagrees we hear them out and come up with a better plan if necessary. Since the beginning there were people voicing concern about the Iraq war even several senior level people came out against it and resigned over it. Seems to me that their voices were unheard. I don't claim to know why Bush decided to go on this war, like I said all the reasons given don't pan out and it would've come out rather early in planning, whatever the reason was one thing is certain Bush made the decision to invade a long long time ago and nothing would deter him from that course.
Democrats opposed military action before Clinton gave the go ahead.
As far as North Korea goes, they got a lil boost from the Clinton Adminstration, by giving them light water reactors which they used for enriching uranium.
OBL, well we all know what Sandy Berger did with the national archives, and blocking 4 plans to capture him.
Anyway, how many administrations do you think the Iraq war will go through? Two? Three?
As far as North Korea goes, they got a lil boost from the Clinton Adminstration, by giving them light water reactors which they used for enriching uranium.
OBL, well we all know what Sandy Berger did with the national archives, and blocking 4 plans to capture him.
Anyway, how many administrations do you think the Iraq war will go through? Two? Three?
Guileless said:
To answer your questions: Yes, No, Yes, and Yes.
During the Downing Street Memo hearing last Thursday Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, noted that on August 26th 2002 during a major speech, Vice President Dick Cheney blatantly lied saying, "We know now that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors including Saddam's own son-in-law [Hussein Kamid (sp)]." This, as McGovern says, was a blatant lie as discovered when Kamid defected in 1995 and in his debriefing report says, "All weapons, biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed." He knows this because he was in charge and they were destroyed in July of 1991 at his order to prevent the UN inspectors from finding them after the war. Furthermore, as McGovern goes on to say, everything else he said checked out to be true. This was leaked to Newsweek by a whistleblower four weeks prior to the war. So did this administration know that Saddam know that Iraq lacked WMDs? In short, yes.
There may have been some concerns that some activities were resumed, but, as more and more reports are detailing, it's clear that the intelligence was hyped to match a foregone conclusion, which was that Saddam was to be removed by military force. As Bush's own autobiographer, Mickey Herskowitz, has stated, via audio taped recordings from Bush in 1999, Bush had plans, if given the opportunity, to consolidate his presidential power, remove Saddam, and "have a successful presidency". As the DSMs denote, the US had already made plans to take military action. In the months leading up to the war, American airstrikes increased their frequency of attacks in effort to goad Saddam into action.
The DSMs also note that the Bush administration, and this has been further confirmed by former and current military officials, never gave much thought to a postwar plan. This is evident, and has been, since the fall of Saddam. The simple fact that most Iraqis still do not have consistent power or water is telling in itself, and the sentiments among the Iraqi population confirms that we never gave much attention, if any, to providing a secure and stable transition, but were simply intent on removing Saddam and the Baath regime with no real preparation for the consequences.
This administration had designs on Iraq preceding 9/11 and used it as a timely excuse; they consciously hyped intelligence and lied to the public, and continue to do so. Rather than directly address the accusations, they attempt to undermine and ignore the evidence as noted by the Republicans' refusal to allow Conyers to hold the DSM hearing in any of the other available rooms in the Capitol and scheduling of 11 consecutive floor votes to attempt to strip away members from attending. Bush's response to the growing disatisfaction has not been to reconsider or revise the strategy but to engage on a new public relations push.
You are not missing something, you're missing everything, Guileless. It's doubtful you'll even attempt to research the accusations, but instead simply think it'll all be okay in the end. There should be a proper investigation into the DSM and growing evidence that we were lied into an unjust war at the very least; it's worth noting the American casualty rate is near 1700, about half of the number of American lives lost during the fall of the Twin Towers with the comparable economic costs of the war skyrocketing.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Macam, I really appreciate someone taking the time to craft a well-written post that goes beyond calling me a fascist. However, you're still working on assumptions that I don't share.
--What one defector said in 1995 does not mean that the Bush administration unequivocally knew there were no WMD in 2003. Other defectors contradicted that statement. You can fault the CIA for not properly assessing the credibility of the various defectors or for the administration for only listening to the ones they wanted to, but what this guy said happened in '91 does not prove that the administration knew there were no WMD in 2003.
--There probably was a foregone conclusion about going to war barring some extraordinary circumstance like Saddam abdicating power and going into exile. However, just because they had already decided to go to war does not prove that the administration conclusively knew about the non-existence of WMD and simply invented their existence to win public support. Even you have to agree that there were reasonable grounds to believe that WMD existed without resorting to outright lying.
--The trouble in providing electricity does not prove that the administration cares nothing about building a better Iraq. As I understand it, the power situation is attributed to 3 main problems:
1. The plants were in terrible shape before the invasion because of sanctions and the generally terrible pre-invasion management of all facets of Iraqi society (except presidential palace construction) under Saddam.
2. Post-invasion looting.
3. Insurgent sabotage.
The US has provided billions of dollars for Iraqi reconstruction. The pace of it is slow and frustrating, but that is mostly because of the difficulties in execution, not some nefarious intent. No doubt there could have been better planning, but that does not mean that the administration just doesn't care what happens in Iraq.
I view the administration's case as if it were a prosecutor in a criminal trial. A prosecutor is given a pre-determined result, and she must sift through the available evidence to contruct a case against the accused, highlighting what helps and downplaying what hurts the case.
What you ignore, Macam, is that there was no "good" intelligence about Iraq, so the administration could not conclusively know anything. It is nearly impossible to get good intelligence in an Orwellian police state where the slightest hint of disloyalty to the absolute dictator means summary execution
In a trial, if the other side of a dispute refuses to produce relevant evidence, then the jury is instructed to assume that the evidence contradicts their case. From 1998 until there was a credible threat of invasion, Saddam refused to allow inspections. Only after months of wrangling and a massive military buildup on his border did he allow inspecitons, and even then there were conditions. The administration was justified to assume that Saddam refused inspections because he had retained the weapons.
Let me ask you one thing Macam. If, on the eve of the invasion, I had asked you to bet 6 months salary on whether WMD existed in Iraq, what would you have bet on? If you claim you would have bet there were no WMD, you would have bet against Hans Blix himself, who has said that he thought the weapons existed on the eve of the war. And you would have gotten great odds because that would have been the underdog.
There is no hard, incontrovertible evidence supporting your belief that the Bush administration intentionally lied about WMD and does not give a shit about Iraqi reconstruction. I'm just not going to assume the worst about anyone, including the government, without good reasons to do so (like gassing people because of their ethnicity.)
--What one defector said in 1995 does not mean that the Bush administration unequivocally knew there were no WMD in 2003. Other defectors contradicted that statement. You can fault the CIA for not properly assessing the credibility of the various defectors or for the administration for only listening to the ones they wanted to, but what this guy said happened in '91 does not prove that the administration knew there were no WMD in 2003.
--There probably was a foregone conclusion about going to war barring some extraordinary circumstance like Saddam abdicating power and going into exile. However, just because they had already decided to go to war does not prove that the administration conclusively knew about the non-existence of WMD and simply invented their existence to win public support. Even you have to agree that there were reasonable grounds to believe that WMD existed without resorting to outright lying.
--The trouble in providing electricity does not prove that the administration cares nothing about building a better Iraq. As I understand it, the power situation is attributed to 3 main problems:
1. The plants were in terrible shape before the invasion because of sanctions and the generally terrible pre-invasion management of all facets of Iraqi society (except presidential palace construction) under Saddam.
2. Post-invasion looting.
3. Insurgent sabotage.
The US has provided billions of dollars for Iraqi reconstruction. The pace of it is slow and frustrating, but that is mostly because of the difficulties in execution, not some nefarious intent. No doubt there could have been better planning, but that does not mean that the administration just doesn't care what happens in Iraq.
I view the administration's case as if it were a prosecutor in a criminal trial. A prosecutor is given a pre-determined result, and she must sift through the available evidence to contruct a case against the accused, highlighting what helps and downplaying what hurts the case.
What you ignore, Macam, is that there was no "good" intelligence about Iraq, so the administration could not conclusively know anything. It is nearly impossible to get good intelligence in an Orwellian police state where the slightest hint of disloyalty to the absolute dictator means summary execution
In a trial, if the other side of a dispute refuses to produce relevant evidence, then the jury is instructed to assume that the evidence contradicts their case. From 1998 until there was a credible threat of invasion, Saddam refused to allow inspections. Only after months of wrangling and a massive military buildup on his border did he allow inspecitons, and even then there were conditions. The administration was justified to assume that Saddam refused inspections because he had retained the weapons.
Let me ask you one thing Macam. If, on the eve of the invasion, I had asked you to bet 6 months salary on whether WMD existed in Iraq, what would you have bet on? If you claim you would have bet there were no WMD, you would have bet against Hans Blix himself, who has said that he thought the weapons existed on the eve of the war. And you would have gotten great odds because that would have been the underdog.
There is no hard, incontrovertible evidence supporting your belief that the Bush administration intentionally lied about WMD and does not give a shit about Iraqi reconstruction. I'm just not going to assume the worst about anyone, including the government, without good reasons to do so (like gassing people because of their ethnicity.)
I'm not going to argue that we had "good" intelligence; we did have an intelligence breakdown, and a large part of that stemmed from not having enough personnel on the ground, such as spies, to gather information. We still don't. We don't even have enough translators.
That said, the administration was drawing wild conclusions and assumptions off intelligence that didn't warrant unilateral, rushed military action, particularly in context of their argument of WMD. Were there questions as to whether Iraq had WMD? Yes, and the DSM shows this, particularly with regards to Britain. They assumed Iraq could've used weapons of that nature, but it wasn't based off any real intelligence and was based upon taking military action. There was no real assurance that Iraq had those weapons and based off what we knew beforehand, including that briefing of Saddam's son-in-law and the time period that had occured since then, it should've cast doubts on the likelihood of Iraq having much of anything. There were certainly questions whether Iraq had WMD, serious questions, and in context of the argument of WMD and hostile regimes, there were, and still are, more pertinent countries to that reasoning. Countries we've barely lifted a finger against.
Moreover, the bigger point of Iraq is that there was no connection to 9/11 and that was the entire basis of engaging in military action in Afghanistan and the Middle East. This was known even then. Foregoing the entire Iraq affair for a minute, the majority of the hijackers were Saudis; Al Qaeda was harbored in Afghanistan. We got one part of that equation right, we ignored the second part since Saudi Arabia is a "friend", and then we shifted the argument of keeping America safe to WMDs, even though we weren't attacked by WMDs at all. We were attacked by our own planes hijacked by a terrorist cell. Now we're looking at WMDs, and next thing we know, we're looking at Iraq of all places. I'm not a betting man, and I wouldn't have taken you up on that bet for one reason: While WMDs are a security threat, they're a seperate issue from the one with which we took up action in the first place. WMDs are all over the place, so I don't see any merit, and never did, on whether Iraq had WMDs. Maybe they did. But this wasn't about Iraq, the Iraqi people, or spreading freedom then; this was about an attack on America soil by terrorists. Since then we've gotten so many things wrong that the bullseye has shifted to liberating and reforming the Middle East.
I never assumed the worst of this administration until the war on terror and the events that followed. There's a growing amount of evidence that Bush did indeed lie about the war, but the only way we'll ever know is if a proper investigation is launched. We deserve that. We deserve the truth. The growing evidence is that this administration is corrupt at all levels, that it cares neither for Iraqis nor for Americans, and that it's intent on pursuing a tone deaf agenda. How you can think otherwise, I don't know, but I imagine it's not your friends or family dying overseas. For god's sake, they said "last throes" this month, which ranked 4th in the amount of American deaths. Last throes.
Even if you disagree with everything, I don't see how you can possibly not support an investigation about the case for war, unless you really are that apathetic.
That said, the administration was drawing wild conclusions and assumptions off intelligence that didn't warrant unilateral, rushed military action, particularly in context of their argument of WMD. Were there questions as to whether Iraq had WMD? Yes, and the DSM shows this, particularly with regards to Britain. They assumed Iraq could've used weapons of that nature, but it wasn't based off any real intelligence and was based upon taking military action. There was no real assurance that Iraq had those weapons and based off what we knew beforehand, including that briefing of Saddam's son-in-law and the time period that had occured since then, it should've cast doubts on the likelihood of Iraq having much of anything. There were certainly questions whether Iraq had WMD, serious questions, and in context of the argument of WMD and hostile regimes, there were, and still are, more pertinent countries to that reasoning. Countries we've barely lifted a finger against.
Moreover, the bigger point of Iraq is that there was no connection to 9/11 and that was the entire basis of engaging in military action in Afghanistan and the Middle East. This was known even then. Foregoing the entire Iraq affair for a minute, the majority of the hijackers were Saudis; Al Qaeda was harbored in Afghanistan. We got one part of that equation right, we ignored the second part since Saudi Arabia is a "friend", and then we shifted the argument of keeping America safe to WMDs, even though we weren't attacked by WMDs at all. We were attacked by our own planes hijacked by a terrorist cell. Now we're looking at WMDs, and next thing we know, we're looking at Iraq of all places. I'm not a betting man, and I wouldn't have taken you up on that bet for one reason: While WMDs are a security threat, they're a seperate issue from the one with which we took up action in the first place. WMDs are all over the place, so I don't see any merit, and never did, on whether Iraq had WMDs. Maybe they did. But this wasn't about Iraq, the Iraqi people, or spreading freedom then; this was about an attack on America soil by terrorists. Since then we've gotten so many things wrong that the bullseye has shifted to liberating and reforming the Middle East.
I never assumed the worst of this administration until the war on terror and the events that followed. There's a growing amount of evidence that Bush did indeed lie about the war, but the only way we'll ever know is if a proper investigation is launched. We deserve that. We deserve the truth. The growing evidence is that this administration is corrupt at all levels, that it cares neither for Iraqis nor for Americans, and that it's intent on pursuing a tone deaf agenda. How you can think otherwise, I don't know, but I imagine it's not your friends or family dying overseas. For god's sake, they said "last throes" this month, which ranked 4th in the amount of American deaths. Last throes.
Even if you disagree with everything, I don't see how you can possibly not support an investigation about the case for war, unless you really are that apathetic.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
i've posted this before - so will probably sound like a broken record.. but, if you want to read America's (actually - not 'america's' but a particular group of people who now happen to be in office) plans for 'restructuring' the Middle East pre-9/11 head on over to
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) (of which Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld are all members)
the one sentence in the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses " (in PDF on the site) that worries me is this ;
their plans for iraq weren't simply drawn up after 9/11 as a reaction to 'dictators' - an invasion of iraq was drafted up months, even years beforehand, and allowed to go into action after 9/11 as the catalyst.
edit; having posted that, one thing struck me - i don't really give a shit anymore. i went through this phase of being really angry about the war - about how they lied about it, continue to lie about it etc - and i used to say before the war started, that it was all bullshit, they'd planned it for years, and i knew i was right.. but now i just don't give a fuck, and i think that's also the problem with a lot of people.
the most horrific truths about this whole debacle keep coming out, and noone bats an eyelid - a year ago i'd be reading more about it , just trying to comprehend how anyone can just continually lie to a populace and they just lap it up.. but now nothing surprises me, or shocks me, or even strikes that much of a reaction in me anymore. i think it's the feeling of not being able to change any of it. i hate being apathetic about it, i just accept thats how the world seems to work :\
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) (of which Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld are all members)
the one sentence in the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses " (in PDF on the site) that worries me is this ;
their plans for iraq weren't simply drawn up after 9/11 as a reaction to 'dictators' - an invasion of iraq was drafted up months, even years beforehand, and allowed to go into action after 9/11 as the catalyst.
edit; having posted that, one thing struck me - i don't really give a shit anymore. i went through this phase of being really angry about the war - about how they lied about it, continue to lie about it etc - and i used to say before the war started, that it was all bullshit, they'd planned it for years, and i knew i was right.. but now i just don't give a fuck, and i think that's also the problem with a lot of people.
the most horrific truths about this whole debacle keep coming out, and noone bats an eyelid - a year ago i'd be reading more about it , just trying to comprehend how anyone can just continually lie to a populace and they just lap it up.. but now nothing surprises me, or shocks me, or even strikes that much of a reaction in me anymore. i think it's the feeling of not being able to change any of it. i hate being apathetic about it, i just accept thats how the world seems to work :\
- Status