There is a difference between Bad intellegence and blatently ignoring the evidence given to you by the people on the grounds
Or selectively pruning the Intel to read what you want it to read to forward your own agenda.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Misled - Iraq and Vietnam?
Misled - Iraq and Vietnam?Follow
Quote:
As would google be able to. However, neither could tell you how many were killed by US Soldiers/bombs and how many were killed by insurgents and their bombs. Or how many would of been killed by Hussein or anyone else for that matter. Though I hate to say this, there could be an argument made that though 20k + are dead, there may of been more killed if history had gone down another path.
what you couldn't argue witrh is that present day Iraq is a far less safe place for the people who live there than 4 years ago and the same culd be said of the rest of the world.
Terrorist attacks are up markedly since the invasion of Iraq.
To boil down and generalize the difference it is this
LBJ did not like or want Vietnam. He was pushed into it and only went along because he felt that to fail to act in Vietnam would be the first failure that would lead to a chain of events leading to the failure of the United States to the USSR. The people in the field told him "this has happened you must take action" and he believed them.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that Bush and Co. wanted to invade Iraq. They wanted it as soon as they stepped into office. They saw Sept 11th as the means to procure the public support for the war. They then knowingly used shoddy evidence to support the case and did their damndest to ignore or hide any evidence to the contrary. They used Yellow Cake to scare america after Joe Wilson proved it false and attacked him when he spoke out about it, they repeatedly cited Curveball and claims of mobile chemical labs despite German officials telling them that he was unreliable and mentally unstable (they then demonized germany when they didnt sign on). They were fully aware that no connection between Al-qaeda and Saddam existed and that Saddam viewed Al-qaeda as a threat (they were briefed on this on Sept 21,2001)
The difference is that LBJ was forced into it and that GW wasn't. That in fact GW and crew led a concerted effort to talk the country into a war using information and reasoning they knew to be shoddy so that they could achieve their own ends.
LBJ did not like or want Vietnam. He was pushed into it and only went along because he felt that to fail to act in Vietnam would be the first failure that would lead to a chain of events leading to the failure of the United States to the USSR. The people in the field told him "this has happened you must take action" and he believed them.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that Bush and Co. wanted to invade Iraq. They wanted it as soon as they stepped into office. They saw Sept 11th as the means to procure the public support for the war. They then knowingly used shoddy evidence to support the case and did their damndest to ignore or hide any evidence to the contrary. They used Yellow Cake to scare america after Joe Wilson proved it false and attacked him when he spoke out about it, they repeatedly cited Curveball and claims of mobile chemical labs despite German officials telling them that he was unreliable and mentally unstable (they then demonized germany when they didnt sign on). They were fully aware that no connection between Al-qaeda and Saddam existed and that Saddam viewed Al-qaeda as a threat (they were briefed on this on Sept 21,2001)
The difference is that LBJ was forced into it and that GW wasn't. That in fact GW and crew led a concerted effort to talk the country into a war using information and reasoning they knew to be shoddy so that they could achieve their own ends.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
You could look up how many people where killed by the Saddam Regime in the 3 years before "Iraqi Freedom" and compaire.
what you couldn't argue witrh is that present day Iraq is a far less safe place for the people who live there than 4 years ago and the same culd be said of the rest of the world.
Terrorist attacks are up markedly since the invasion of Iraq.
what you couldn't argue witrh is that present day Iraq is a far less safe place for the people who live there than 4 years ago and the same culd be said of the rest of the world.
Terrorist attacks are up markedly since the invasion of Iraq.
Your first was an excellent point; however, the past does not necessarily tell the future, just because the US aids % infected vs the total population has remained the same for the past 10 years does not mean in 2 years it will be higher or lower (that was generated to make a point).
I would agree that Iraq is a pretty bad place to live in currently, but my situation has not changed, it is no more dangerous where I live than it was 4 years ago. I doubt the people in Canada cry themselves to sleep every night because of fear of terrorist attacks. Canadians wanna make a statement?
Your terrorist attacks statement is nil and void, the majority of the terrorist attacks are in iraq, each car bomb that goes off counts as a terrorist attack, seeing as how there are about 1 per day ... kind of skewes the number a little bit. As for terrorism around the rest of the world, besides those 1 or 2 stints in England, there really hasn't been much else. Unless you count those drunken aussie's who beat someone down and called it a "Major Terrorist Operation".
I am in no way trying to minimize the attacks on England, though I do not live there, it was pretty humbling hearing about them, makes you think about your family everytime you hear of a situation like that.
Kronig wrote:
Wasn't LBJ considered to be one of the crappier presidents we have had anyways?
Yeah, he sucks, in Mexico they refer to him as "el BJ".
Kylia wrote:
Yeah, he sucks, in Mexico they refer to him as "el BJ".
.....
Ok so I laughed a little as I was shaking my head.
Wingchild wrote:
At this rate, we're learning not only that there is no objective truth; there can be no objective truth.
Welcome to being human?
Do what now?
Yes, US intelligence was faulty in overestimating Iraq's WMD holdings. However, the very same intelligence says we are in little danger from Sadam's Iraq - unless we invade.
I have repeated this since before the war. It is not my opinion that the US will be less safe if we invade Iraq - personally I just don't know - but the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) says so.
To utterly confuse the issue, the NIE was only partially declassified months before the war - but literally only hours before the US congress voted.
On 20 March, 2003, the US launched strikes against Iraq.
Legally, this was based on the the 2 October 2002 resolution of the US House and Senate which says:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
The NIE had concluded before the war Sadam was unlikely to attack the US unless we invaded. Further, he was unlikely to assist terrorists with any WMD unless invaded. They concluded UN inspections did help detect and deter WMD development - and since inspectors returned Nov 18, 2002 (five days after Iraq's government accepted the UN resolution) neither (1) nor (2) above were satisfied.
Their review of intelligence as of Oct 2002 is here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
However, this is not the full report. The fuller report was released on 18 July 2003 during a White House Briefing:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030718-8.html
What is being released - virtually four months after the war began - is just the "Key Judgements" from the prewar NIE.
If you scroll down about 1/5 of the whole way, you'll see the first question:
Q We don't have page 24.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, I'm sorry. If you'll go -- it looks like a blank paper, but there's a little box at the bottom that says "uranium acquisition." Now, this is taken from an excerpt of the overall highly classified nuclear chapter of the 90-page NIE.
What is on page 24? It was later released and is reproduced here:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/nie2002_iraq_wmd.htm
Scroll down toward the bottom and you'll find:
This is expanded on in the text just above the previous quote (which was just a summary):
That this was known, but not released, in general, caused great frusturation on the part of Senate democrats.
You can listen to audio of the Democratic lead on the Sentae Intelligence Subommittee (Graham of Flordia) speaking to a radio program about this here:
http://www.thislife.org/ra/227.ram
(RealPlayer required ick).
The direct contradition between the NIE saying Iraq is less of a threat if we don't invade (e.g. invading Iraq leads the US into greater danger, not less) and the President saying we must invade Iraq to protect the US leads Graham to ask the radio show staff to ask the President (since the White House won't answer Graham himself) if the President has additional knowledge outside the NIE.
The NIE is supposed to be basically a sum total review of intelligence - to quote the whitehouse.gov link above again (this is about 40% of the way down:
In short - any dissent, any stray opinion, is included in the full NIE. Clearly we cannot release the whole 90 page NIE on Iraq because (assumedly) each piece of evidence is discussed in detail and it would thus comprimise sources.
However, not to release *all* of the key esitmates (including the critical confidence levels table and subsequent discussion of Sadam's relative non-threat to the US unless we attack) is essentially fraud.
The actual intelligence was *not* fixed by the Whitehouse. The full report was edited down to the point that what was released was only what the administration wanted the Congress to know.
I'm not saying that we should not have gone to war, only that our reasoning to go to war was directly contradicted by our own intelligence services. Perhaps the most direct conflict is in the Congresses Authorization of force:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
and the NIE:
There were Democrats on the Subcommittee who actually got the entire NIE on Iraq. They tried to communicate this to others but the story seemed to have "no legs" in the press. In the end, Graham and 22 other Senators voted against the joint (house-senate) war resolution of 2002:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
One wonders what the vote would have been had all the Senators had access to the entire NIE - but they all should have listened to their colleagues and if they did not do so it is their personal responsibility.
Currently many sources are reporting the President had "better" intelligence then the NIE - this is hotly refuted by the Whitehouse:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051113.html
and perhaps the whitehouse is being honest. However, the NIE as released to the sentate was badly misleading. Generally, you don't exclude the conclusions and include details on one side of an issue and call that unbiased.
And note that the Washington Post allegation that the Congress did not have enough time to evaluate the NIE is unrefuted.
I have repeated this since before the war. It is not my opinion that the US will be less safe if we invade Iraq - personally I just don't know - but the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) says so.
To utterly confuse the issue, the NIE was only partially declassified months before the war - but literally only hours before the US congress voted.
On 20 March, 2003, the US launched strikes against Iraq.
Legally, this was based on the the 2 October 2002 resolution of the US House and Senate which says:
US Congress wrote:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
The NIE had concluded before the war Sadam was unlikely to attack the US unless we invaded. Further, he was unlikely to assist terrorists with any WMD unless invaded. They concluded UN inspections did help detect and deter WMD development - and since inspectors returned Nov 18, 2002 (five days after Iraq's government accepted the UN resolution) neither (1) nor (2) above were satisfied.
Their review of intelligence as of Oct 2002 is here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
However, this is not the full report. The fuller report was released on 18 July 2003 during a White House Briefing:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030718-8.html
What is being released - virtually four months after the war began - is just the "Key Judgements" from the prewar NIE.
If you scroll down about 1/5 of the whole way, you'll see the first question:
WhiteHouse.gov wrote:
Q We don't have page 24.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, I'm sorry. If you'll go -- it looks like a blank paper, but there's a little box at the bottom that says "uranium acquisition." Now, this is taken from an excerpt of the overall highly classified nuclear chapter of the 90-page NIE.
What is on page 24? It was later released and is reproduced here:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/nie2002_iraq_wmd.htm
Scroll down toward the bottom and you'll find:
The CIA in Oct 2002 wrote:
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
High Confidence:
* Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
* We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
* Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
* Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material
Moderate Confidence:
* Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).
Low Confidence
* When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.
* Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
* Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.
High Confidence:
* Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
* We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
* Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
* Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material
Moderate Confidence:
* Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).
Low Confidence
* When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.
* Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
* Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.
This is expanded on in the text just above the previous quote (which was just a summary):
Quote:
We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.
* Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition.
* Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.
* He probably would use CBW when be perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.
* We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.
* Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.
Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
* The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The US probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.
Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida--with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States--could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
* In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him
* Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition.
* Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.
* He probably would use CBW when be perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.
* We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.
* Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.
Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
* The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The US probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.
Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida--with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States--could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
* In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him
That this was known, but not released, in general, caused great frusturation on the part of Senate democrats.
You can listen to audio of the Democratic lead on the Sentae Intelligence Subommittee (Graham of Flordia) speaking to a radio program about this here:
http://www.thislife.org/ra/227.ram
(RealPlayer required ick).
The direct contradition between the NIE saying Iraq is less of a threat if we don't invade (e.g. invading Iraq leads the US into greater danger, not less) and the President saying we must invade Iraq to protect the US leads Graham to ask the radio show staff to ask the President (since the White House won't answer Graham himself) if the President has additional knowledge outside the NIE.
The NIE is supposed to be basically a sum total review of intelligence - to quote the whitehouse.gov link above again (this is about 40% of the way down:
Quote:
Q But there were overall concerns about significant --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: To take that question, Terry, there are six -- the way the NIE works is that there are six agencies -- and there's a lot of other agencies that funnel through that, like, all the services have their agencies -- that work to put together this document. And in this they make a conclusion. Yes, there is a footnote. I'm not sure -- if you use that as your test, as your standard, then any decision the President has made, he has to disclose every dissent: the President today put forward a $20 billion tax cut. I'm here to tell you today that one of my advisors thought it should only be $18 billion. That's not the way it works.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: To take that question, Terry, there are six -- the way the NIE works is that there are six agencies -- and there's a lot of other agencies that funnel through that, like, all the services have their agencies -- that work to put together this document. And in this they make a conclusion. Yes, there is a footnote. I'm not sure -- if you use that as your test, as your standard, then any decision the President has made, he has to disclose every dissent: the President today put forward a $20 billion tax cut. I'm here to tell you today that one of my advisors thought it should only be $18 billion. That's not the way it works.
In short - any dissent, any stray opinion, is included in the full NIE. Clearly we cannot release the whole 90 page NIE on Iraq because (assumedly) each piece of evidence is discussed in detail and it would thus comprimise sources.
However, not to release *all* of the key esitmates (including the critical confidence levels table and subsequent discussion of Sadam's relative non-threat to the US unless we attack) is essentially fraud.
The actual intelligence was *not* fixed by the Whitehouse. The full report was edited down to the point that what was released was only what the administration wanted the Congress to know.
I'm not saying that we should not have gone to war, only that our reasoning to go to war was directly contradicted by our own intelligence services. Perhaps the most direct conflict is in the Congresses Authorization of force:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Quote:
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
and the NIE:
Quote:
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.
Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
There were Democrats on the Subcommittee who actually got the entire NIE on Iraq. They tried to communicate this to others but the story seemed to have "no legs" in the press. In the end, Graham and 22 other Senators voted against the joint (house-senate) war resolution of 2002:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
One wonders what the vote would have been had all the Senators had access to the entire NIE - but they all should have listened to their colleagues and if they did not do so it is their personal responsibility.
Currently many sources are reporting the President had "better" intelligence then the NIE - this is hotly refuted by the Whitehouse:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051113.html
and perhaps the whitehouse is being honest. However, the NIE as released to the sentate was badly misleading. Generally, you don't exclude the conclusions and include details on one side of an issue and call that unbiased.
And note that the Washington Post allegation that the Congress did not have enough time to evaluate the NIE is unrefuted.
Yossarian I have stated this before but you are my hero. You are the bizarro universe version of Gbaji. Only much more interesting and humourous.
Post more.
Post more.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhisattva wrote:
Yossarian I have stated this before but you are my hero. You are the bizarro universe version of Gbaji. Only much more interesting and humourous.
Post more.
Post more.
I'm sorry my friend, but I've been posting since the UBB days to achieve my current post total. I simply don't have time to post more. If I did, likely I would take up ogame, or a MMORPG, or perhaps fishing...or perhaps fishing in a MMORPG...
Solid data with objective presentation.
Excellent post, Yossarian.
Excellent post, Yossarian.
Yup. Yossarian's post is very good.
There is *one* problem with it though. It still intersperses a significant assumption that Iraq actually did possess WMD, and might use them if we attacked (but might not if we didn't).
Um. So is his argument basically that if more members of congress had known that Iraq was more likely to use his WMD on us if we attacked then if we didn't, that this would have significantly detered the body with regards to their vote? I don't buy that one bit.
You really need to read the Joint Resolution in context. Specifically, the passage that Yossarian quotes is not just talking about a single time frame. It's forward looking. It's assessing what may happen down the line if we don't take action to prevent it. An intelligence document stating that "right now", Iraq isn't likely to attack us because they know that would draw us into attack really doesn't counter that argument at all. All that says is that Iraq is playing the same game it's played all along. Walk the line just short of what they think will cause someone to actually invade them, and get away with everything else they can.
While I'm sure some Democrats in Congress were ideologically of the opinion that we should not attack unless the threat of attack was "imminent", or had already occured, that *wasn't* the argument of the Bush administration, nor is that ideology really supported by the rest of Congress or their stated reasons for invading Iraq. It was not about whether or not Iraq had done enough "right now" to warrant invasion. It was about the fact that Iraq was knowingly violating multiple agreements, and would continue to do so unless we took action.
I really see this as a red herring. I don't think this document would have changed the minds of a significant number of members of congress. It's not like the argument about whether Iraq was an "imminent" threat wasn't made many times. It got no traction, not because of some conspiracy to conceal the facts, but because most of the people making the decision based it on the idea that Iraq did *not* have to present an "imminent" threat, but merely an ongoing one that would never go away unless we removed Saddam from power.
In fact, the resolution doesn't use the word "imminent" at all to describe the threat from Iraq. So the fact that Iraq wasn't likely to attack "right now" isn't really a refutation of the argument for war. It's just something that can be used after the fact to *seem* like it is.
There is *one* problem with it though. It still intersperses a significant assumption that Iraq actually did possess WMD, and might use them if we attacked (but might not if we didn't).
Um. So is his argument basically that if more members of congress had known that Iraq was more likely to use his WMD on us if we attacked then if we didn't, that this would have significantly detered the body with regards to their vote? I don't buy that one bit.
You really need to read the Joint Resolution in context. Specifically, the passage that Yossarian quotes is not just talking about a single time frame. It's forward looking. It's assessing what may happen down the line if we don't take action to prevent it. An intelligence document stating that "right now", Iraq isn't likely to attack us because they know that would draw us into attack really doesn't counter that argument at all. All that says is that Iraq is playing the same game it's played all along. Walk the line just short of what they think will cause someone to actually invade them, and get away with everything else they can.
While I'm sure some Democrats in Congress were ideologically of the opinion that we should not attack unless the threat of attack was "imminent", or had already occured, that *wasn't* the argument of the Bush administration, nor is that ideology really supported by the rest of Congress or their stated reasons for invading Iraq. It was not about whether or not Iraq had done enough "right now" to warrant invasion. It was about the fact that Iraq was knowingly violating multiple agreements, and would continue to do so unless we took action.
I really see this as a red herring. I don't think this document would have changed the minds of a significant number of members of congress. It's not like the argument about whether Iraq was an "imminent" threat wasn't made many times. It got no traction, not because of some conspiracy to conceal the facts, but because most of the people making the decision based it on the idea that Iraq did *not* have to present an "imminent" threat, but merely an ongoing one that would never go away unless we removed Saddam from power.
In fact, the resolution doesn't use the word "imminent" at all to describe the threat from Iraq. So the fact that Iraq wasn't likely to attack "right now" isn't really a refutation of the argument for war. It's just something that can be used after the fact to *seem* like it is.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Your terrorist attacks statement is nil and void, the majority of the terrorist attacks are in iraq, each car bomb that goes off counts as a terrorist attack, seeing as how there are about 1 per day ... kind of skewes the number a little bit. As for terrorism around the rest of the world, besides those 1 or 2 stints in England, there really hasn't been much else. Unless you count those drunken aussie's who beat someone down and called it a "Major Terrorist Operation".
It's not like the argument about whether Iraq was an "imminent" threat wasn't made many times. It got no traction, not because of some conspiracy to conceal the facts, but because most of the people making the decision based it on the idea that Iraq did *not* have to present an "imminent" threat, but merely an ongoing one that would never go away unless we removed Saddam from power.
That's so true. Had it gotten any traction we might have done something crazy like send the Secretary of State to the UN to try and convince people of the immedicay.
Man, what a fuc[b][/b]king boondogle that would have been, eh?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Holy f[/b]uck I think I've seen a ghost!
That's so true. Had it gotten any traction we might have done something crazy like send the Secretary of State to the UN to try and convince people of the immedicay.
Man, what a f[b]ucking boondogle that would have been, eh?
M.I.A. Smash wrote:
Quote:
It's not like the argument about whether Iraq was an "imminent" threat wasn't made many times. It got no traction, not because of some conspiracy to conceal the facts, but because most of the people making the decision based it on the idea that Iraq did *not* have to present an "imminent" threat, but merely an ongoing one that would never go away unless we removed Saddam from power.
That's so true. Had it gotten any traction we might have done something crazy like send the Secretary of State to the UN to try and convince people of the immedicay.
Man, what a f[b]ucking boondogle that would have been, eh?
Quote:
Holy **** I think I've seen a ghost!
Smasharoo wrote:
It's not like the argument about whether Iraq was an "imminent" threat wasn't made many times. It got no traction, not because of some conspiracy to conceal the facts, but because most of the people making the decision based it on the idea that Iraq did *not* have to present an "imminent" threat, but merely an ongoing one that would never go away unless we removed Saddam from power.
That's so true. Had it gotten any traction we might have done something crazy like send the Secretary of State to the UN to try and convince people of the immedicay.
Man, what a fuc[/b]king boondogle that would have been, eh?
Yeah. It would have been. Funny though. Because in the entire presentation to the UN, he never once uses the word "immediate".
He does, however say this in his closing statements:
Quote:
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, [b]should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?
Hmmm... Is that Powell talking about how Iraq might "someday" use those weapons? That's not terribly "immediate", now is it? Kinda sucks when the facts don't actually match your rhetoric, doesn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Hmmm... Is that Powell talking about how Iraq might "someday" use those weapons? That's not terribly "immediate", now is it? Kinda sucks when the facts don't actually match your rhetoric, doesn't it?
Give poor Colin a break. He's allready on record as saying the UN speech is a 'black mark' on his record.
We had this argument a year ago.
I'm still right, and you're still a partisan hack, so let's not bother repeating ourselves.
Realizing that you're a Bush supporter, and thus your ability to ignore reality and suspend disbelief is shocingly high, I'll just patronize you.
This administration didn't attempt to foster the impression that there was a link between Saddam and 9-11 and in no way attempted to imply that Saddam was seaking nuclear weapons to attack the US.
Not at all.
Anyone that thinks so is just plumb crazy.
Now you can tell me how Alito is a moderate, debt is good for the economy, surrenduring civil liberties at an alarming rate is ok because it's worth it to protect the public from being victim to a terrorist attack (which at present, in the US is 19 times less likely than being struck by lightning), poor people are just lazy, black people are just whiners, children with no health insurance are just too stupid to be born into wealthier fammilies and that it's ok to have FEMA run by a guy who's expertise is in rodeos.
Then you can off and smoke crack, or whatever it is you do to convince yourself of that stuff and I'll just laugh.
Some things never change, I guess.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Gee Smash. Why not just say "I'm rubber and you're glue". That's no less childish or irrelevant of an argument. So I'm wrong about this topic because... well. You say I'm wrong.
Got it. Any more wise advise for the board? Maybe you have another stock tip to share?...
Got it. Any more wise advise for the board? Maybe you have another stock tip to share?...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gee Smash. Why not just say "I'm rubber and you're glue". That's no less childish or irrelevant of an argument. So I'm wrong about this topic because... well. You say I'm wrong.
Wrong about what?
You haven't stated a position yet. Let me know what it is you're advocating and I'll let you know how you're wrong.
Starts with having a position. Make a statement. Any moron can sit around say "gee, maybe this will happen" "looks like this isn't happening quite as you say" etc.
Let me know what it is you're saying, man.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
Yup. Yossarian's post is very good.
Quote:
There is *one* problem with it though. It still intersperses a significant assumption that Iraq actually did possess WMD, and might use them if we attacked (but might not if we didn't).
That was the info at the time. My argument is based on the info available at that time. It is not based on what we know now. That would be too easy :) We all know I was right in hindsight :)
Quote:
So is his argument basically that if more members of congress had known that Iraq was more likely to use his WMD on us if we attacked then if we didn't, that this would have significantly detered the body with regards to their vote? I don't buy that one bit.
Our best intel was that. At the time. The full report was supressed, with misleading sub-report releases. I don't give a damn if you don't believe that. The conclusions of the report should have been released - not a subset of facts all pointing to what the administration wanted us to think.
I specifically state there were people like Graham who saw the full report. They told others. News story had no legs in the press - the public just didn't care. I specifically blame all those who ignored the report for passing a resolution contradicting the best available intel.
Quote:
You really need to read the Joint Resolution in context. Specifically, the passage that Yossarian quotes is not just talking about a single time frame. It's forward looking. It's assessing what may happen down the line...
Yep - and that just makes my argument stronger. It is long term. We really were not in long term danger. Thanks for pointing that out.
Quote:
While I'm sure some Democrats in Congress were ideologically of the opinion that we should not attack unless the threat of attack was "imminent"
Well, clear and present danger (not gathering threat) was the prevading criteria in the past. I am making no argument on this issue here.
Quote:
It was not about whether or not Iraq had done enough "right now" to warrant invasion. It was about the fact that Iraq was knowingly violating multiple agreements, and would continue to do so unless we took action.
And getting the inspectors back into Iraq was that action. The report says the inspections were effective.
Quote:
I really see this as a red herring.
Fascinating.
Quote:
I don't think this document would have changed the minds of a significant number of members of congress.
It didn't. Some saw it. However, it should have been released generally and the final declaration of war should have been based on it, not contradicting it.
Quote:
It's not like the argument about whether Iraq was an "imminent" threat wasn't made many times...In fact, the resolution doesn't use the word "imminent" at all...So the fact that Iraq wasn't likely to attack "right now" isn't really a refutation of the argument for war. It's just something that can be used after the fact to *seem* like it is.
That's nice. Since it isn't my argument at all, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Edited, Sun Dec 4 01:16:13 2005 by yossarian
All this crap about Iraq and WMDs and the war on terror was just show and tell.
Rumsfeld, Cheny, and the rest of the neoconservatives had been planning on invading Iraq for quiet some time. Here is a link to their non-profit "think-tank" organization that is the philosophical background of their foreign policy.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Members include:
**** Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Lewis Libby - HAHAHA
William Kristol
Elliot Abrahms
...and many, many, more of our favorite policy makers/wealthy insiders.
PNAC aims "to make the case and rally support for American global leadership...to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests."
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
****************************************************
Now here is the kicker...
In a letter to President Clinton in 1998, these members asked Clinton to “undertake military action…to protect our vital interests in the Gulf,†including “a significant portion of the world’s oil supply [that] will all be put at hazard†if left to the regime of Saddam Hussein. You can read the letter and who it is signed by for yourself here:
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
In September 2000, the PNAC released a
report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century." The report called itself a “blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interestsâ€.
It also states that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Hmmm...needing a Pearl Harbor like event to capitulate this war...makes me wonder about all of the glaring irrregularities, inconsistencies, lack of evidence, and logical fallacies of the theory about the crazed Islamic maniacs flying all of those planes all over the country on Sept. 11'th...
Rumsfeld, Cheny, and the rest of the neoconservatives had been planning on invading Iraq for quiet some time. Here is a link to their non-profit "think-tank" organization that is the philosophical background of their foreign policy.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Members include:
**** Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Lewis Libby - HAHAHA
William Kristol
Elliot Abrahms
...and many, many, more of our favorite policy makers/wealthy insiders.
PNAC aims "to make the case and rally support for American global leadership...to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests."
http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
****************************************************
Now here is the kicker...
In a letter to President Clinton in 1998, these members asked Clinton to “undertake military action…to protect our vital interests in the Gulf,†including “a significant portion of the world’s oil supply [that] will all be put at hazard†if left to the regime of Saddam Hussein. You can read the letter and who it is signed by for yourself here:
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
In September 2000, the PNAC released a
report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century." The report called itself a “blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interestsâ€.
It also states that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Hmmm...needing a Pearl Harbor like event to capitulate this war...makes me wonder about all of the glaring irrregularities, inconsistencies, lack of evidence, and logical fallacies of the theory about the crazed Islamic maniacs flying all of those planes all over the country on Sept. 11'th...
soulshaver wrote:
All this crap about Iraq and WMDs and the war on terror was just show and tell.
Rumsfeld, Cheny, and the rest of the neoconservatives had been planning on invading Iraq for quiet some time. Here is a link to their non-profit "think-tank" organization that is the philosophical background of their foreign policy.
Rumsfeld, Cheny, and the rest of the neoconservatives had been planning on invading Iraq for quiet some time. Here is a link to their non-profit "think-tank" organization that is the philosophical background of their foreign policy.
Well, yes, WMD was, in fact crap. It was also the best intel avaialble at the time, and people like John McCain are saying they've talked to the CIA people and there was no pressure to force the intelligence to that conclusion. However, if you read the documents, they are saying Sadam is *not* a threat to the US. What he has is very unlikely to be used against us and he is very unliklely to give them to terrorists...just repeating myself here.
Yes, in fact you can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_of_Loyalty by Bush's own first secretary of the Treasury and find out that in fact they were talking about invading Iraq since day one of the administration. Christmas for the Whitehouse came in September in 2001.
John McCain are saying they've talked to the CIA people and there was no pressure to force the intelligence to that conclusion.
That's simply untrue. Either he's lying, or the people he talked to were lying to him.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 201
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (201)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Misled - Iraq and Vietnam?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC