Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Case for War in Iraq

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

JaTo: I was gonna do this as a PM but decided otherwise. I was gonna stay out of this thread, but felt I owed you some respect first. Checked out your articles. One sounded too much like a January 2005 version of what Kerry was saying during the debates, so I wasn't sure you were serious in wanting to sound too much like him. Like involving other nations? Bush ripped Kerry a new butt for saying that, and now Bush can not do it, lest someone point out he was enacting Kerry's advice.

---

I don't by into the wholesale concept that the UN or any other party can come in and undo what's been done or "save the day"; I'm firmly of the mindset that it's ALL up to the Iraqis as a people (yes, a fractured and ethnically divided people, but a people with some degree of a national identity regardless).

Bringing in other countries isn't going to change the insurgency mindset one way or the other; US Army "green" (or desert camo in this case) would be replaced with UN turquoise but all the Iraqis and insurgents would see is yet another occupier that isn't to be trusted very far. Long story short, I'm in agreement with MUCH of what the articles say, but in terms of bringing even the most modest levels of peace and structure to the bulk of Iraq is going to HAVE to be orchestrated by the Iraqis themselves.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

Yes, the May 05 article was out of Newsday by Tim Phelps, but the ME pentagon intelligence guy quoted to say it is a civil war was not a straw man journalist as your response post might prefer. But if it was a civil war in May, I don't recall news since then that the civil war has ended.

---

I'm still having a hard time swallowing the "civil war" argument; nothing I've read or heard from firsthand witnesses to the day-to-day events in Iraq are telling me that it's gone that far downhill.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

Wait and see, I appreciate that. I personally AM torn over should we stay or should we go. (Insert Clash soundtrack here). I'd been a stay person up to recently, and now on the other hand, we've already had 2 1/2 years of compounded blunders there, by people who have yet to admit they've made any and who trumpet their intent to just keep on doing more of the same. I did not have much trust in them from the outset admittedly, but I can understand how some who did hold much faith in this administration feel very let down. So we are now stuck having to wait and see, and hope. And hoping for what? Hoping the Sunnis don't have their own NEW Saddam or clerics take over? Hoping the Shi'ites do NOT make a democracy like that in IRAN?

---

Progress is being made in my estimation, but I'll agree that the logistical screwups and lack of proper planning for the aftermath of the war have caused this progress to absolutely CRAWL along the ground instead of walk. I never really dared to hope or believe that it would take off at a full sprint, but I did expect it to be better executed and farther along that where we are at today.

Thanks, Rummy.

...though he's not entirely to blame. The expectations that were set at the beginning were FAR too aggressive and those that had an inkling that any level of reconstruction would take a LONG time weren't loud enough in their warnings, though with the way Cheney and Rumsfeld have been handling themselves lately, I'm not entirely sure those warnings would have been heard or even taken seriously.

You speak of hope (or the lack thereof); my hope is that the Iraqis as a people divided will finally steel themselves into getting behind moderate leadership there, as letting a return to 8th century ideology (which Al-Qaeda provides) or sucking up to a firebrand like Al-Sadr (which would alienate the Kurds and Sunnis to an even greater degree) WILL be a far worse fate than what Hussein provided for the Iraqi population for the most part, and that's saying a lot.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

In the meantime, we train the Iraqi military and police to keep the peace on their own, but members of those groups just happen to be sunnis and shi'ites biding their time for when we leave. No, we need MORE than just a trained Iraqi military/police force in place when we leave. We need a stable, established secular government with a broad consensus. (Yeah, right, like that's gonna happen within just another year or two. Does Bush have that rabbit stuffed into a magic hat?)

---

What we wanted and what we will most likely end up getting are two different things. This is the reality of the situation that exists today, though half of a democracy or republic is better than an entire dictatorship or lunatic theocracy.

I don't see Iraq becoming any level of a complete and comfortable democracy for YEARS, though I still belive that it can become one. The "seed" has been planted, though it seems that it's being pissed on instead of watered properly right now...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

NEXT, that you have realism over "what circumstances/ when is it appropriate to leave" -- and expressly leaving that subject to change -- I have to agree with you. I'm concerned about what's the best outcome this bunch can realistically produce, and everytime someone says we're spreading democracy to the middle east I want to heave over the idealogical naivete. Remember the quote on politics being like making sausage? We're making Iraq sausage. The Brits tried it once and their bangers lasted most of a century, but it was still sausage. Now our present cook preaches he's preparing filet mignon. WTF? I have to consider if we're better pulling out before this cook burns the whole meal. Talk about a record for assuring other emerging democracies...

---

All of which are EXCELLENT reasons why the Iraqis need to be shoved (perhaps kicking and screaming) into a position of taking care of their own business and FAST, though not so fast as to hobble any chance that they have.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

And finally, thank you for having intellectual integrity, and both the means and the ends matter to you. You do NOT have a need to be correct 100% of the time, even when you are incorrect, although you're clearly way above 50% for being correct and you're not fully married to a fancied unerring idealogy. Lord knows I can't fault you for having an ego and intelligence and I'm too shrill, but your contributions are almost always legit even when I differ greatly with them. BTW, I owe you kudos for one you did in the Texas gay marriage vote thread.

---

Thank you much for the acknowledgement, though I'm barely qualified to carry a career diplomat's jock-strap in terms of policy commentary; I'm simply a moderately well-read amateur that can't keep my mouth shut or my fingers off the keyboard at times...

Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:

---

...Its a lie that the Senate had access to the same intelligence as Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Presidentâ�?��?�s Daily Brief, known as the P.D.B., one of the most sensitive intelligence documents in the American system. Its information is supposed to be carefully analyzed, or â�?��?scrubbed.â�?� Distribution of the two- or three-page early-morning report, which is prepared by the C.I.A., is limited to the President and a few other senior officials. The P.D.B. is not made available, for example, to any members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees.

.....

Forged documents and false accusations have been an element in U.S. and British policy toward Iraq at least since the fall of 1997, after an impasse over U.N. inspections. Then as now, the Security Council was divided, with the French, the Russians, and the Chinese telling the United States and the United Kingdom that they were being too tough on the Iraqis. President Bill Clinton, weakened by the impeachment proceedings, hinted of renewed bombing, but, then as now, the British and the Americans were losing the battle for international public opinion. A former Clinton Administration official told me that London had resorted to, among other things, spreading false information about Iraq.

.....

Did a poorly conceived propaganda effort by British intelligence, whose practices had been known for years to senior American officials, manage to move, without significant challenge, through the top layers of the American intelligence community and into the most sacrosanct of Presidential briefings? Who permitted it to go into the President���?�s State of the Union speech? Was the message���?�the threat posed by Iraq���?�more important than the integrity of the intelligence-vetting process? Was the Administration lying to itself? Or did it deliberately give Congress and the public what it knew to be bad information?

Asked to respond, Harlow, the C.I.A. spokesman, said that the agency had not obtained the actual documents until early this year, after the President���?�s State of the Union speech and after the congressional briefings, and therefore had been unable to evaluate them in a timely manner. Harlow refused to respond to questions about the role of Britain���?�s MI6. Harlow���?�s statement does not, of course, explain why the agency left the job of exposing the embarrassing forgery to the I.A.E.A. It puts the C.I.A. in an unfortunate position: it is, essentially, copping a plea of incompetence.

.....

A former intelligence officer told me that some questions about the authenticity of the Niger documents were raised inside the government by analysts at the Department of Energy and the State Department���?�s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. However, these warnings were not heeded.

â�?��?Somebody deliberately let something false get in there,â�?� the former high-level intelligence official added. â�?��?It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up.â�?�

.....

It can���?�t help the President���?�s case, or his international standing, when his advisers brief him with falsehoods, whether by design or by mistake.

.....

On March 14th, Senator Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally asked Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, to investigate the forged documents. Rockefeller had voted for the resolution authorizing force last fall. Now he wrote to Mueller, â�?��?There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.â�?� He urged the F.B.I. to ascertain the source of the documents, the skill-level of the forgery, the motives of those responsible, and â�?��?why the intelligence community did not recognize the documents were fabricated.â�?�

---

Originally posted by BP:

---

... and they obviously don't receive or review a PDB or similar document on a daily basis.

---

You sure about that??...

Originally posted by �?¡Oracle!:

---

I don't know why anyone thinks that the executive branch has exclusive access to the intel before anyone else?

---

common sense says they do. the SIC is an oversight committee, not a decision making committee. you know what that means right?

they don't run the country on a day to day basis so why would they review intel prior to the CIC? in addition the SIC depends on a staff of (non-politcal ) people to plan their meetings and prepare their breifs. if they were to have access to secure information prior to the executive branch there would be room for leaks which could jeopardize decision making at higher levels.

Originally posted by �?¡Oracle!:

---

Now after the fact these clowns are acting most disgracefully when they deny the very statements that many of them made about the intel.

---

the questions brought up by the SIC are valid. how was the intel used and was all of it made available to them for oversight. obviously not! we have at least two examples where they didn't have the whole story... the example on the documents used to link iraq to nukes, and the truth about curveball being a undependable source with an agenda and axe to grind on iraq/saddam. yet the facts about both of those situations were not made available to the SIC until they were disclosed by others. why is that? why did rumsfeld pay visits to the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA and have conversations with them about the intel they were providing early on? conversations we still don't know the full details of? we do have some insight based on conjecture that he was pressuring them for the "slam dunk" info the bush admin needed for pre-emptive war, but of course it can't be proven. i'm sure he wasn't asking them to commit resources to anything that might show iraq wasn't the threat it was being presented as though. why hasn't the SIC and everyone else been able to get the full complete story on that? it's funny how when they're doing their job, now they're coined as clowns and the blame is on them.