Bush Lied-intelligence and facts fixed to support war in Iraq

[Figment]

No. His responses have become personal. Tread lightly or get reported.

careful, everyone...not only will he threaten & attack on the boards, he'll send profanity-laden private messages and then block you from responding.

 

[Lebjwb]

So there we have the "grand plan" of the LW fanatics - it their own words. Wait til someone ELSE does something and then find something to say "I would not have done THAT" about. <do I hear an echo here?>

ROFLMAO

The actual question = "What would you DO?" = is STILL unanswered.

The Bu$h plan is a failure. Obvious to all but the die hard faithful. I believe that there is more truth in the Rolling Stone article then fiction. You choose to ignore the article. So be it.

The quick answer to your question was to do the opposite of what Bu$h has done. I stand by that.

I'm an administrator, not a global stratagist. I form my opinions from books and articles. I excercise my right to agree or disagree with the authors. Some partially and others completely. I tend to agree with the following;

"the United States needs a new National Security Strategy whose implementation will reverberate across the individual-national-international security spectrum through reliance on preventing rather than employing violent conflict. The strategy would rely on the following five pillars (and perhaps more):

(1) strengthening international law and institutions, such as the UN, the International Criminal Court, and regional organizations engaged in preventing or peacefully settling disputes. This above all means abandoning the policy of preventive war and replacing it with conflict prevention;

(2) developing, funding and staffing a stand-by corps of conflict resolution and mitigation experts and an international police training force that can be employed under UN auspices in emerging crises, post-conflict rebuilding, non-judicial reconciliation and justice programs, and peacekeeping/peace monitoring activities;

(3) promoting and negotiating transparent, verifiable regional arms control and disarmament agreements involving chemical and biological weapons, small arms and light weapons; developing restrictive national and enforceable international arms export controls; implementing the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty beyond the provisions of last year’s Moscow Treaty on reducing nuclear arsenals, and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;

(4) supporting further development of international humanitarian law and human rights, particularly in times of conflict; ending overt and covert military backing of authoritarian, oppressive regimes; and creating and implementing through relevant multinational organizations context-sensitive “experiments in education” that address the formation of civic society, transparency and accountability of government, and human rights awareness; and

(5) providing funding and other development assistance that will alleviate and even eradicate root causes of violent conflict by meeting fundamental human needs — water, food, health care, education; and encouraging environmental stewardship and sustainability (including reducing U.S. dependence on oil).


http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=42&issue_id=45

If you want to make snide comments about me go right ahead. You aren't advancing your position however.

 

[jrydberg]

It seems many have gotten 20/20 hindsight. It's easy to be certain about things after they've been demonstrated. The preponderance of evidence available at the time indicated that Saddam probably still had old WMD lying around. Intel is not an exact science. The vast majority of analysis done on the subject by world intel experts led to the same conclusion Bush came to.

Were there anecdotal exceptions? Sure. There will be on any intelligence matter where first-hand information is virtually impossible to come by. Were there errors in judgment by the administration? Certainly.

But let's look at this objectively. What would the administration have to gain by lying about WMD intel? What could possibly motivate President Bush to lie about something that he knows with absolute certainty will be exposed as a lie when we go in? That makes no sense whatsoever. The only reasonable scenario, IMO, is that the administration honestly believed the WMD would be there.

 

[Laura]

They did? I'm a pretty good reader (graduated high skool) but I don't think I've read anything but things like (summarization) "Bush sucks and everything he's done has led to more terrorism" . That's not a "plan", that's criticism. Granted, most of them agree with the actions in Afghanistan (on principal) but even screwed that up by pulling troops out to go after Iraq and let OBL escape. Now if we apply Lebjwb's plan, which is the opposite of whatever Bush has done, wouldn't that literally mean do nothing?

http://disboards.com/showpost.php?p=8529185&postcount=151
Second paragraph--I addressed it. I'm not an expert on these things, but I put forth a few ideas. I really think finding sources of funding is a great way to go about it. The Taliban contributed millions to Al Qaeda and we wiped that out with military intervention.

But one thing we need is good intelligence. We don't have that. And we can't spin intel into the direction we want it to go. It's dangerous.

 

[Charade]

I love "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. I almost hate to butt in here, but I didn't know that you read that stuff! I doubt very highly that Charade has ever read anything like this. He doesn't seem to be into enlightetninment. Um., I doubt that Bush has either!!

Is that a personal attack? And FTR, *you* enlighten me.

 

[Teejay32]

We can't go back in the time machine to correct things, but the problem with this statement is that apparently "the available intel at the time" was fixed, rigged, etc. It was trash. That's what the whole thread is about.

And if you believe that there was a good relationship between Osama and Saddam, then fine.

I think there was a working relationship between the Iraqi Intelligence Service and two or three groups under the al-Qaida umbrella, definitely. This is usually extrapolated wildly and someone points out that Saddam and Osama are two very different people - yes. I know. The same people are usually quick to point out that our CIA collaborated with Arab militias against the USSR in Afghanistan, and Ronald Reagan and Osama were two very different people too. So?

When the final WMD report was published, the quote in the headlines was "we were almost all wrong" about WMD. That was interesting to me in itself, because it just didn't match up with minor news reports since 2003 - it was worth looking through the report. There were hits and misses, and an awful lot of "the whole place was cleaned out and we could find no traces of...." or "we cannot confirm or deny the presence of....." The report is exhaustive, but it also says whatever you want it to say. It does make one thing perfectly clear - Saddam banked everything, literally, on having UN sanctions lifted specifically for the purpose of his coveted weapons programs. And that it's doubtful that anyone lied in the pre-war assessments - there's things in that report that make you sick, things that would have garnered support among this population a heck of a lot faster than restarting his nuclear program.

But anything I've ever said against Saddam Hussein, in an Iraq thread, is taken as GWB apologia by left-wing sheeple. It's the most bizarre thing.

 

[toto2]

I wish folks that didnt live here would stay out of our business and our elections.

Unfortunatly for you and us ( and that has been clear for many years) The decision the US takes and the actions of your governement has an effect on the rest of us on the planet. How is it that your governement can try to influence my governement on same-sex marriage , on decriminilasisation of drugs , our involvement in war etc , but we cannot comment on the action of you governement ? . Your governement can says " you are with us or agains us" , and we cannot answer ? When you are a super-power ( probably the last one) everybody will have an opinion on you.

I have been reading this thread , (and many like these in he time of the much missed debate board) , and there is one thing that amazes me:

What some people dont seem to realize is that the governement of the USA is not a small boy scout organization. The USA has the most sophisticate spy satellite systhem known to man. They have the most spyes in the world ( and the best I must say). The USA has the means to find a needle in five haystaks in a few seconds if they want to.

What has been served to us , the world as an excuse for invasion of Irak was : stockpliles of mass destructions weapons, not one or two stick of dynamite, stockpiles ! Factories to make gaz and such , not subburbia basements, Trains with laboratories, not a little Volkwagen beetles !

Since the first Gulf War , with all the thing Irak had to do to comply with the UN and the USA , Irak probably was one of the most schrutinized , spyed , looked upon country in the world. In other word , people who wanted war had to invent a reason for it.

There is no doubt in any minds that saddam was a bad boy. He did bad things to his citizens. But they had electricity , clean roads , drinkable wather then. Saddam didnd bombed the whole country. When he gazzed the kurds , it was well before the firt gulf war , when he was an american allie.


Yess , clinton lied about innapropriate sexual conduct between 2 consenting adults that didn't kill anyone. But he didnt twist the evidence to in vade a country. !

 

[ThAnswr]

I love "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. I almost hate to butt in here, but I didn't know that you read that stuff!

You might PM me and tell me why.

I doubt very highly that Charade has ever read anything like this. He doesn't seem to be into enlightetninment.

Never sell anybody short. You never know.

Um., I doubt that Bush has either!!

On this, I tend to agree. Although the disturbing thing is that much of the military brass has as this is used at the War College.

On second thought, Bush probably did read "The Art of War".......Rok's version.

 

[Figment]

On this, I tend to agree. Although the disturbing thing is that much of the military brass has as this is used at the War College.

Why would it "disturb" you that the military brass has read this?

Why does it surprise you if Bush has read this? You keep calling him stupid, & you keep underestimating him, & he keeps beating you. Eventually, I'd figure you'd get tired of being wrong.

oh well, you edited your original....

 

[ThAnswr]

I think there was a working relationship between the Iraqi Intelligence Service and two or three groups under the al-Qaida umbrella, definitely.

Why do you still think this when no one, through any investigation, has been able to come up with anything resembling a working relationship?

I don't want to put you on the spot, but I just don't understand how in the face of a mountain of evidence, people still want to believe differently.

 

[Charade]

No. His responses have become personal. Tread lightly or get reported.

O.....M.....G!


Now that's funny.

 

[jrydberg]

Since the first Gulf War , with all the thing Irak had to do to comply with the UN and the USA , Irak probably was one of the most schrutinized , spyed , looked upon country in the world. In other word , people who wanted war had to invent a reason for it.

Actually, quite the opposite. There were very few places in the world (none that I can think of) where we had such a paucity of good, solid intelligence as we did in Iraq prior to the war. That region, and Iraq in particular, had been a significant problem as to intelligence for years. We had zero reliable human intelligence there for a number of reasons (not the least of which was restrictions placed on the CIA in terms of who they can have a relationship with).

Intelligence work involving Iraq was much more of a guessing game than anywhere else in the world.

 

[Figment]

Why do you still think this when no one, through any investigation, has been able to come up with anything resembling a working relationship?

I don't want to put you on the spot, but I just don't understand how in the face of a mountain of evidence, people still want to believe differently.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Were they working hand in hand with every move, probably not. Was there support and collaboration at times? of course there was.

 

[ThAnswr]

Why would it "disturb" you that the military brass has read this?

Because as evidenced by the conducting of this war, they didn't learn a damned thing.

Why does it surprise you if Bush has read this? You keep calling him stupid, & you keep underestimating him, & he keeps beating you. Eventually, I'd figure you'd get tired of being wrong.

I never called Bush stupid. I think the decisions he makes are stupid, but I don't think he's stupid. I think he's an arrogant ignoramus who gets away with it because of who he is and what his family does.

As far as being wrong, go back and check the record:

Those on your side of the aisle believed the WMD claims. Those on my side of the aisle looked on with a skeptical eye. We were right and you were wrong.

Those on your side of the aisle believed Bush/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz when they said this war would not be costly and would paid for by the Iraqi oil. Those on my side of the aisle knew a crock when we saw one. We were right and you were wrong.

Those on your side of the aisle believed there was a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Those on my side of the aisle said "no way". We were right and you were wrong.

And it goes on and on.

"Beating me"? Save the hyperbole for the next bund meeting.

 

[ThAnswr]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Were they working hand in hand with every move, probably not. Was there support and collaboration at times? of course there was.

Go back and read the 9/11 commission report instead of Fox employee Fred Barnes's Weekly Standard.

As far as www.techcentralstation.com claims, "A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.", puhleeze that myth has been debunked so many times, only the most ardent of Bush apologists still quote it and believe it.

 

[jrydberg]

I never called Bush stupid. I think the decisions he makes are stupid, but I don't think he's stupid. I think he's an arrogant ignoramus who gets away with it because of who he is and what his family does.

Just found this amusing. Emphasis is mine.

 

[ThAnswr]

Just found this amusing. Emphasis is mine.

There's a world of difference between being ignorant and stupid, although the end result is often the same.

 

[Figment]

Because as evidenced by the conducting of this war, they didn't learn a damned thing.



I never called Bush stupid. I think the decisions he makes are stupid, but I don't think he's stupid. I think he's an arrogant ignoramus who gets away with it because of who he is and what his family does.

As far as being wrong, go back and check the record:

Those on your side of the aisle believed the WMD claims. Those on my side of the aisle looked on with a skeptical eye. We were right and you were wrong.

Those on your side of the aisle believed Bush/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz when they said this war would not be costly and would paid for by the Iraqi oil. Those on my side of the aisle knew a crock when we saw one. We were right and you were wrong.

Those on your side of the aisle believed there was a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Those on my side of the aisle said "no way". We were right and you were wrong.

And it goes on and on.

"Beating me"? Save the hyperbole for the next bund meeting.

ig·no·ra·mus
n. pl. ig·no·ra·mus·es An ignorant person.

ig·no·rant
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

stu·pid
adj.

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

As for your side, they voted to give the authority to Bush.

They believed the WMD claims.

If they were to use the Iraqi oil for funding (as I believe they should), your side would say, even louder & more incorrectly, that this war was about oil.

There was a relationship between Iraq & Al Queada.

And, W. won in Nov. We were right, & you were wrong. Losing is a hard to break habit for the left.


As for the personal attack, calling me a member of the Nazi Youth (bund). I am quite sick of the way you & a certain few others can consistently get away with insults & name calling. You ought to be banned for your repeated personal attacks. You, again, owe me an apology. Sickening.

 

[Charade]

If they were to use the Iraqi oil for funding (as I believe they should), your side would say, even louder & more incorrectly, that this war was about oil.

They done both. Complained that it was "for the oil" and that the administration's claim to use the oil to pay for the war was a crock.

 

[Teejay32]

Why do you still think this when no one, through any investigation, has been able to come up with anything resembling a working relationship?

I don't want to put you on the spot, but I just don't understand how in the face of a mountain of evidence, people still want to believe differently.

No evidence has ever been offered against a working relationship, except that Saddam and Osama are different types of people and that Iraq has no ties to 9/11. There is a lot of evidence that actually leans toward the IIS collaborating with outside groups which later comprise the al-Qaida network. This is another angle (or start of one) that involves the Sudan; you find a lot of it looking at various defenses of Clinton's actions against Iraq at the time...the "debunkings" always include some high official saying results were inconclusive, the burden of proof for an act of war was not met, or the conventional wisdom that Clinton just had to bomb something. Those aren't debunkings, they're doubts.