|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Are you implying Bush had no motivation to lie? That is absurd. He had the biggest possible motivation: he planned and started an unpopular and unnecessary war, and he had to justify it!! Bush and his advisors (Rove, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.) were determined to invade Iraq even before 9/11 (the news reports on this are readily available, feel free to ask for examples).
Tell me this: why are you so eager to excuse the president from his duty to weigh the evidence? You seem to be saying that it was OK for him to just accept the CIA's conclusions, when the weakness of the evidence was readily apparent. You pretend that since the CIA is also responsible for weighing the evidence, the president need not bother to do it. This makes no sense at all; it seems to me you are just covering up for Bush's mistakes.
Yes..I am.
You are apparently saying that Bush deliberatly lied because he "he planned and started an unpopular and unnecessary war". Knowing he lied, it is clear he must have known it would be unlikely to find WMD. So he assumed the dems & the media would just ignor this? Give him a pass. Bush lied but thats OK it was a meaningless war. Wait thats what Kerry and the liberal media have been saying all along. I can only believe you think Bush wanted to be a one termer?
Why would Bush knowingly lie about WMDs when he knew he would look bad later, when the WMDs weren't found? He didn't. Bush (like all of us) did not know whether there were actually WMDs in Iraq, so he couldn't have lied about that. But he did lie about the EVIDENCE for WMDs. I think he felt "in his gut" that we would find WMDs. He believed the WMDs were there, even though he knew the evidence was weak. So he was not lying when he said he believed we would find WMDs. He lied about something else: the strength and reliability of the evidence he had seen. And he allowed his subordinates (Cheney, Tenet, etc.) to lie too, when they unforgivably overstated the case for WMDs.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
"Determined to invade Iraq"...OF COURSE there were plans to invade. OLD PLANS, NEW PLANS, MANY PLANS for different senerios. Since 1998 Clinton made regime change the policy for Iraq. Military contingency plans seems a good idea. hey, since Gulf war, 1991..and Saddam failed to comply..Military contingency plans seems a good idea here too. I think sec defense would be NEGLIGENT not to have plans. I hope they have invasion plans on the table for Iran, Syria, N.Korea, etc. etc...but I hope we don't need em..
Dan, I was not talking about Pentagon war plans, which I suppose they have for every country on Earth (updated annually, too!). I was talking about the POLICY in favor of unilateral invasion of Iraq, which was created and nurtured in the neo-con think-tanks mentioned earlier. Let me know if you want the background info on Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice etc., and their prior careers as developers of these neo-con Iraq war policies in the 1990s.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
I am just not sure what I can say...CIA, MI-5, Putin, Massad all saying the same. You cannot understand how one could have looked at the intell, post 9/11, and not concluded a threat may exist.
Dan, nobody is doubting that a "threat may [have] existed" in Iraq. We all agree with that. But what most Americans are now doubting is whether that threat was sufficient (and sufficently imminent) to justify a bloody and hugely expensive war.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Was "slam dunk" overstated..probably, but Tennant is the one who overstated to the Pres. Tennant is gone, as he should be. But I must conclude that to accuse Bush of deliberately lying is intellectually dishonast.
Ouch, Dan. I have made every effort here to lay out a rational explanation for my position. I have shown every step in my logic. And you have not pointed out a flaw in it. But then you call me intellectually dishonest? Dan, I usually reserve that for people who are obviously falsifying facts or using demonstrably faulty logic. It is not an appropriate accusation for someone who simply has a different point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
I'm NOT looking to wade into this thread as a major participant. BUT...
With the imbedded TV crews' shots of munitions STILL in the bunkers when the reporters showed up, with the UN seal still on them, and David Kay vouching for that's what the seals were, is there REALLY still so much dispute that we DID leave bunches of Saddam's ammo dumps behind, unguarded, while we were on our way to Baghdad?
Was the Polish colonel full of BS when he found a local kid guarding another ammo dump site WEEKS after we moved past it, that was ripe for looting because we did NOT secure it?
Is there REALLY still so much dispute over that the invasion was done wrong: with too few troops etc to do the job correctly?
Gee, George, that's a great job of making us AND OUR TROOPS OVER THERE safer that you've done.
And thanks Mayor Rudy, for saying it's our troops' fault. Is that his platform for 2008?
PS: My daughter the army nurse got married today at Ft. Bragg. Her regular army hubby leaves for Baghdad's green zone in mid January. Or sooner. She and he are both Kerry voters via absentee ballots. Go ahead and proclaim them agents of the enemy while you sit on your ass at home.
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
[:
Look at the facts. The evidence Bush saw showed that the alleged uranium sale was based primarily on an unverified document and uncorroborated rumors
Quick point, as you keep saying this..
You know that British MI-5 still stands by the documents authenticity, and that Ambassador Wilson's report led the 9/11 commission to conclude that his observations actually supported rather than refuted the Niger yellowcake story...
You know Duelfer's report details that Saddam took pains to keep his nuclear braintrust intact, and these scientists actually individually hid various nuclear related information with the understand that Saddam planned to reconstitute when sanctions were lifted.
You know, granted there may be no clear proof at present that vast stockpiles of old WMD or attempts to rebuild a nuclear program or actionable links to Al Qaeda but there still are ALOT of unanswered questions despite several major investigations.
Bill Gertz's report of Russian special ops (rouge?) moving out something to Syria just before we came. Maybe just some of the tech they were selling Saddam illeagally, maybe the explosives everyone is talking about, maybe WMD...think back 2 years to the Israeli satellite photos of convoys leaving Iraq for Syria...WHAT were the hell Russians doing??
I don't know any facts about transferring WMDs to Syria, but it may make sense that Iraq would transfer the WMDs to Syria. If it did, and that intel was available to Bush, then Bush misled us even more than I thought.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Funding Al Qaeda...why all the meetings with Iraqi intell, at leat 3 pretty certain and 1-2 other possiblities all detailled in 9/11 commision report.
Come on, Dan. The report concluded that there were contacts, but no ties, between Iraq and Al Quaeda. I don't know why you would bring up those meetings unless you are challenging the report's conclusion. Please don't do that unless you have the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
He gamed billions from oil for food, paid off UNSC members for vetos, was paying them off to lift sanctions and planned to resume WMD per Duelfer's report. Saddam was a VERY bad dude, world class lier, yet liberals act like we invaded a monastary...really weak!
That last sentence is more dramatic overstatement. Come on, Dan. Nobody denies Saddam was horrible. That's Bush's fallback rationalization for the war. But very few people really believe it is a sufficient one. We are not the World Cops. You guys keep confusing the legitimate reasons for hating Saddam with legitimate reasons for launching a war.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Point is, we have been looking around Iraq for 18 months with VASTLY better access that UN inspectors had, we have captured and interrogated hundreds, we have captured thousands of Iraqi documments and we STILL do not really know what was going on. Yet the left expects Bush to have been clarvoient with the intell he had at hand.
No, we do not expect Bush to have been clairvoyant. I can't really come down too hard on him for believing there were WMDs in Iraq. But I despise him for telling us the case was solid when he knew it wasn't. I will not be lied to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,812
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,812 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
[:
Look at the facts. The evidence Bush saw showed that the alleged uranium sale was based primarily on an unverified document and uncorroborated rumors
Quick point, as you keep saying this..
You know that British MI-5 still stands by the documents authenticity, and that Ambassador Wilson's report led the 9/11 commission to conclude that his observations actually supported rather than refuted the Niger yellowcake story...
You know Duelfer's report details that Saddam took pains to keep his nuclear braintrust intact, and these scientists actually individually hid various nuclear related information with the understand that Saddam planned to reconstitute when sanctions were lifted.
You know, granted there may be no clear proof at present that vast stockpiles of old WMD or attempts to rebuild a nuclear program or actionable links to Al Qaeda but there still are ALOT of unanswered questions despite several major investigations.
Bill Gertz's report of Russian special ops (rouge?) moving out something to Syria just before we came. Maybe just some of the tech they were selling Saddam illeagally, maybe the explosives everyone is talking about, maybe WMD...think back 2 years to the Israeli satellite photos of convoys leaving Iraq for Syria...WHAT were the hell Russians doing??
I don't know any facts about transferring WMDs to Syria, but it may make sense that Iraq would transfer the WMDs to Syria. If it did, and that intel was available to Bush, then Bush misled us even more than I thought.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Funding Al Qaeda...why all the meetings with Iraqi intell, at leat 3 pretty certain and 1-2 other possiblities all detailled in 9/11 commision report.
Come on, Dan. The report concluded that there were contacts, but no ties, between Iraq and Al Quaeda. I don't know why you would bring up those meetings unless you are challenging the report's conclusion. Please don't do that unless you have the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
He gamed billions from oil for food, paid off UNSC members for vetos, was paying them off to lift sanctions and planned to resume WMD per Duelfer's report. Saddam was a VERY bad dude, world class lier, yet liberals act like we invaded a monastary...really weak!
That last sentence is more dramatic overstatement. Come on, Dan. Nobody denies Saddam was horrible. That's Bush's fallback rationalization for the war. But very few people really believe it is a sufficient one. We are not the World Cops. You guys keep confusing the legitimate reasons for hating Saddam with legitimate reasons for launching a war.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Point is, we have been looking around Iraq for 18 months with VASTLY better access that UN inspectors had, we have captured and interrogated hundreds, we have captured thousands of Iraqi documments and we STILL do not really know what was going on. Yet the left expects Bush to have been clarvoient with the intell he had at hand.
No, we do not expect Bush to have been clairvoyant. I can't really come down too hard on him for believing there were WMDs in Iraq. But I despise him for telling us the case was solid when he knew it wasn't. I will not be lied to.
I too agree that Saddam was a terrible person and that we had good reason to think he had WMDs, but as you said, he convinced Americans that the evidence was solid and that he was positive there were weapons. Lied to and all it cost was 15,000+ civilian deaths and 1,000 plus American deaths with no clear end in sight. But that's a good bargain for keeping us safe and strengthening international ties. 
1999 Black SVT
"If I were an admin I'd ban you without a second thought. " ~Trapps
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
This is going back a bit on this thread, but has anyone seen the case that Greg Thielmann (30 year veteran of the US State Dept) makes on how the US' Energy Dept. AND State Dept. analysts knew (and reported) -- before we invaded -- that Saddam's aluminum tubes were not for use in centrifuges to enrich radioisotopes... yet those tubes were regularly cited in Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice comments before the war, to justify going in soon after the remarks were made. And yes, even by Colin Powell, disregarding his department's analysts.
WTF kind of consensus throughout the international intelligence community is that?
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Ouch, Dan. I have made every effort here to lay out a rational explanation for my position. I have shown every step in my logic. And you have not pointed out a flaw in it. But then you call me intellectually dishonest? Dan, I usually reserve that for people who are obviously falsifying facts or using demonstrably faulty logic. It is not an appropriate accusation for someone who simply has a different point of view.
I was not using "intecllectually dishonast" to imply you were falsifying facts. More that I think the accusation of lying is too strong and that you are overstating the case. I will retract statement..apologies.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Quote:
Dan, I was not talking about Pentagon war plans, which I suppose they have for every country on Earth (updated annually, too!). I was talking about the POLICY in favor of unilateral invasion of Iraq, which was created and nurtured in the neo-con think-tanks mentioned earlier. Let me know if you want the background info on Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice etc., and their prior careers as developers of these neo-con Iraq war policies in the 1990s.
If you have some info that is not from some over the top liberal hit squad, then I'd like to see it.
In all honasty, and WMD/oil-for-food issues asside, I think Iraq makes an interesting case for invasion. Unpopular middleast leader, known invader history, known mass murderer and saddist, humanitarian reasons, people starved by yet Saddam refractory to sanctions and UN resolutions, strategic location in heart of fundamentalist Islam yet less fundamentalist people, oil rich for self sufficiency, not TOO strong militarily (c/w say Iran) and someone who had generated his credibility in the US by defying the U.S...IF one believed that democracy is the antithesis of fundamentalist Islam, that the 2 cannot co-exist side by side, and IF one was interested in attempting to implant a muslim democracy in the "belly of the beast" I think Iraq probably makes an optimal candidate. Is THIS where the "neocons" were comming from?
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Mr. Barnes: my apologies for not adhering to your wishes. However, after reading the last series of posts from yourself, JaTo, Eternalone, and others, all of which have been relatively good IMO, there might be some benefit in looking at the Bush administrationâ??s record on Iraq from three distinct perspectives: moral, legal, and military.
Given the current state of available information and widely varying opinions on what is right and wrong, and given the (sometimes purposeful) ambiguity of various U.N. resolutions, it is highly unlikely in a forum like this to come to an easy agreement on the â??moralâ?? and â??legalâ?? questions.
But looking at it from the military angle, I think there is enough common ground for objective-minded people to make a reasonable determination as to whether or not Bushâ??s decisions have resulted in success in Iraq; by considering the agreed upon facts concerning the reason for military action and what I believe is the undisputed outcome of it.
So letâ??s look at the military angle assuming that everything Bush has maintained about the need for it, is true â?¦ Iâ??m sure JaTo and Eternalone will correct me if I misrepresent the Bush position. And for my purposes I am defining â??military action against Iraqâ? to include everything from the collection of intelligence and the decision-making processes that led up to the invasion, as well as the invasion and subsequent occupation up to today.
The Bush Case for invasion:
1) The threat of Iraqi WMD being used to destabilize the region or for attacks on the U.S.A., was the primary reason for U.S. sponsored actions within the U.N. Security Council, and was in fact the primary reason for proposing U.N. military action against Iraq.
2) Hussein had a prior history of capability in producing WMD and had in fact used them; clearly a pattern that represented a threat.
3) Numerous U.N. resolutions over many years had failed to eliminate the threat of Iraqi WMD
4) The Hussein regime had regularly and often confounded the attempts of UNSCOM and then UNMOVIC to determine the actual status of any WMD
5) U.N. inspectors found no evidence of WMD, however the Bush position was that the lack of evidence about the existence of WMD was in no way evidence that they did not exist; and that they in fact probably did, because Iraq was offering no proof that they had been disposed of
6) At some point Bush determined that the possible existence of WMD represented a significant enough threat to the Region and to the United States, that military action, with our without explicit U.N. sanction, was a viable and required course of action
7) This decision was made with the help of existing intelligence that offered compelling circumstantial evidence that very strongly suggested WMD existed.
8) Bush made no statements to indicate that this intelligence actually included the whereabouts of WMD; although had their whereabouts been known, this would be a legitimate exclusion for security purposes
9) Whether or not Bush statements about this intelligence were intended to mislead, there seems to be no evidence that he at any time claimed to be in possession of intelligence that proved with absolute 100% certainty that WMD existed
10) The invasion against Iraq was launched to secure the region and the U.S. from the threat of Iraqi WMD
11) To this point in time, there have been no discoveries of Iraqi WMD, or proof that they did or did not exist.
IMO the decision to invade was seriously flawed, and the subsequent military action has been a failure; as follows:
The stated purpose was to eliminate the threat of WMD. Launching an invasion for this purpose without knowing where the WMD were located, was bound to fail as they would be virtually impossible to locate and seize in a timely fashion â??? especially given the size and nature of the country, and given that the opening salvos were by air. This should have been patently clear to military strategists.
On the other hand, if in fact their location was known, then the military action must be considered a failure because not one WMD was brought under control. This is unacceptable given the resources available to the U.S. military.
The stated purpose was to eliminate the threat of WMD. I think it logical to extend that to mean that the purpose was also to verify the elimination of the threat of WMD.
From that perspective the military action must also be considered a failure, because there has been no such verification. Instead, there is the continued assertion that WMD in fact do exist, although their location remains unknown. Considering the possibility that no WMD ever did exist, the verification of that fact would seem to be critical.
The opportunity to verify the absence of WMD under the current chaotic and unsafe conditions in Iraq is understandably not a military priority; however, nor is it possible for civilian inspectors to be doing this work.
A more prudent course of action would have been to let the U.N. inspectors do their work (locate or verify disposal), while maintaining an all-out intelligence gathering effort to in fact locate them; at which point an invasion would have had IMO a much greater opportunity for success in eliminating the threat of WMD.
Bottom line IMO:
Assuming the existence of Iraqi WMD, the military action has increased the threat to the region and to the U.S. because we no longer know who controls them â??? this is a net reduction in critical information.
Assuming that WMD did not exist, there is now a reduced opportunity to ever prove their non-existence, as a direct result of the military action against Iraq; and given the level of destruction and upheaval, it is conceivable that any evidence that may have existed, could very well be lost or destroyed making future investigation less viable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
I don't know any facts about transferring WMDs to Syria, but it may make sense that Iraq would transfer the WMDs to Syria. If it did, and that intel was available to Bush, then Bush misled us even more than I thought.
Come on, Dan. The report concluded that there were contacts, but no ties, between Iraq and Al Quaeda. I don't know why you would bring up those meetings unless you are challenging the report's conclusion. Please don't do that unless you have the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
Again...my POINT was there is ALOT we still do not know, but ALOT of people are jumping to broad conclusions, largely for political advantage. It is my oppinion we have a number of revelations in store for for us in the comming years about Iraq and what Saddam was up to..
Truck convoys going to Syria is not proof (so not sure how Bush mislead here??). But we are adding new pieces to the puzzel.
Iraqi intell met with Al Qaeda.. what was discussed is unknown. That is my conclusion...we do not know what was planned, not planned, discussed, not discussed. Search MIGA and HSA yourself....interesting but not conclusive. What did Saddam do with 11+ billion dollars? Why did Al-Zarqawi come to Baghdad for his medical care after being wounded in Afganistan then go to the N. Iraq Ansar al Islam terrorist camp? Coincidence? I keep hearing that these fundamentalists wanted no part of Saddam's secular society...
How far did the UN corruption go? What were Russian special OPs doing in Iraq? It just goes on and on..
It does appear Saddam did not have an active WMD program, but he acted like he had something to hide. Speculation on my part...yes. I have no proof. We are learning new stuff daily. I can say (speculate seems too weak) that whatever was going on was not likely to be revealed by the UN.
We both smell a rat I think, you think it is Bush, I think the smell comes from the direction of the UN building and Iraq. We will see..
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
IMO the decision to invade was seriously flawed, and the subsequent military action has been a failure; as follows:
The stated purpose was to eliminate the threat of WMD. Launching an invasion for this purpose without knowing where the WMD were located, was bound to fail as they would be virtually impossible to locate and seize in a timely fashion â??? especially given the size and nature of the country, and given that the opening salvos were by air. This should have been patently clear to military strategists.
A more prudent course of action would have been to let the U.N. inspectors do their work (locate or verify disposal), while maintaining an all-out intelligence gathering effort to in fact locate them; at which point an invasion would have had IMO a much greater opportunity for success in eliminating the threat of WMD.
Assuming that WMD did not exist, there is now a reduced opportunity to ever prove their non-existence, as a direct result of the military action against Iraq; and given the level of destruction and upheaval, it is conceivable that any evidence that may have existed, could very well be lost or destroyed making future investigation less viable.
Good outline of premise...flawed analysis
The documented inability over many years of weapons inspectors to find anything that was not in an above ground bunker (possibly aided by the suggestions we had that France and perhaps Russian officials were "tipping off" the Iraqis as to inspector destinations), coupled with the vast size of Iraq suggests that knowing the location suggests that it is unlikely we would know all or even most of the locations of presumed WMD. I think what was "patently clear to military strategists" was that we would need to do one on one interrogations with captured Iraqi's and those who stepped foreward after the threat of Saddam has been removed. That threat, BTW is not fully removed until the new government is more firmly established...many Iraqis are waiting to see who wins before committing.
I would argue we did largely prove a lack of ongoing WMD production and we defined the dual use capacity much more accurately and completely than inspectors would have in this timeframe. Prexisting pre 1991 WMD while still unaccounted for are probably degraded to a substantial degree. These would be the LEAST likely WMD that inspectors would have found as they are more likely to be burried. As I said above, any chance of finding these rests with Iraqi informant sources, which we will have better access to with Saddam and his government eliminated.
I think your expectations are unrealistic, not accounting for variables (ie UN corruption) and use an overly compressed time frame. How well even basic strategies worked & objectives of wars are reached is simply not possible for many years, often the war being concluded for years. War is always fluid, mistakes alwys made on both sides, intelligence is alwys wrong in every war ever fought.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
