PDA

View Full Version : For Those That Believe That Bush And Cheney Rigged Intelligence Against Iraq...



sappstuf
9/10/2011, 01:44 PM
How exactly to you explain Operation Desert Fox that Clinton authorized at the end of 1998? What was the mission and mission goals?


MISSION: To strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

MISSION GOALS: To degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. To diminish Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors. To demonstrate to Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international obligations.

http://www.defense.gov/specials/desert_fox/

Seems odd that Clinton would attack Iraq specifically for WMDs.. Unless.. You know.. He believed that Saddam had them.

What did other prominent Dems think about Iraq and WMDs? Please don't follow this link unless you want your reality exploded..

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp



I can only come up with a couple of possibilities..

1. Bush and Cheney are truly the smartest two men on the planet and started rigging intelligence years before they were even elected to office. Of course to admit this, you would have to drop the "Bush is dumb" meme.

2. The intelligence was honestly wrong along with most of Washington. However, Dems saw the opportunity to engage in the absolute worst type of politics by lying and pushing ideas they knew to be lies to start an agenda against Bush no matter the cost to the nation in a time of war.

I'm open to other suggestions, but sadly, #2 appears to be the correct answer. What a sad example of what the Democratic party has become.

GrapevineSooner
9/10/2011, 03:51 PM
Clinton was a tea party plant.

Trump...err...Perry/Enrico Pallazo 2012

diverdog
9/10/2011, 04:03 PM
What was it that Powell said to Bush? You break it you own it. Clinton did not invade Iraq. Big difference. The invasion and all the screws up by Rummy fall directly on Bush and no one else.

While the Downing Street Memo and the yellowcake uranium scandal lend credence to claims that intelligence was manipulated, two bipartisan investigations, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the other by a specially appointed Iraq Intelligence Commission chaired by Charles Robb and Laurence Silberman, found no evidence of political pressure applied to intelligence analysts.[63] An independent assessment by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found, however, that Bush Administration officials did misuse intelligence in their public communications. For example, Vice President Dick Cheney's September 2002 statement on Meet the Press that "we do know, with absolute certainty, that he (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon" was inconsistent with the views of the intelligence community at the time.[63]
A study coauthored by the Center for Public Integrity found that in the two years after September 11, 2001 the president and top administration officials had made 935 false statements, in an orchestrated public relations campaign to galvanize public opinion for the war, and that the press was largely complicit in its uncritical coverage of the reasons adduced for going to war.[64][65] PBS commentator Bill Moyers had made similar points throughout the run up to the Iraq War, and prior to a national press conference on the Iraq War[26] Moyers correctly predicted "at least a dozen times during this press conference he [the President] will invoke 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America. But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims."[66][67] Moyers later also denounced the complicity of the press in the administration's campaign for the war, saying that the media "surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with [the U.S.] government in marching to war," and that the administration "needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on."[67]

Soonerfan88
9/10/2011, 05:19 PM
I was watching a show on National Geographic about the FBI agent that debriefed Saddam Hussein. According to Saddam, he was intentionally leaving clues and hints he still had WMD to keep the Iranians in check. Although Iraq no longer had operational weapons, they kept the necessary components on hand and maintained facilities.

Note: I'm not trying to justify anything that anyone did, but it gave me a better understanding of how some of those decisions might have been made.

sappstuf
9/10/2011, 05:31 PM
What was it that Powell said to Bush? You break it you own it. Clinton did not invade Iraq. Big difference. The invasion and all the screws up by Rummy fall directly on Bush and no one else.

Off topic.

This is about "Bush lied people died" that we heard about for years. Do you think it was option #1, #2 or put forward your own explanation.

sappstuf
9/10/2011, 05:34 PM
I was watching a show on National Geographic about the FBI agent that debriefed Saddam Hussein. According to Saddam, he was intentionally leaving clues and hints he still had WMD to keep the Iranians in check. Although Iraq no longer had operational weapons, they kept the necessary components on hand and maintained facilities.

Note: I'm not trying to justify anything that anyone did, but it gave me a better understanding of how some of those decisions might have been made.

That is a good explanation. I have always thought that Saddam was bluffing and Bush called his bluff. Hindsight is 20/20 that Saddam didn't have them.

sappstuf
9/10/2011, 05:37 PM
Clinton was a tea party plant.

Trump...err...Perry/Enrico Pallazo 2012

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZSRRivY4xlE/Rko4zeTmlyI/AAAAAAAAAog/rauyouoFZ8w/s320/epallazzo.bmp

diverdog
9/10/2011, 09:43 PM
Off topic.This is about "Bush lied people died" that we heard about for years. Do you think it was option #1, #2 or put forward your own explanation. You left out the part where Saddam tried to kill his daddy. That played into ppart of the equation.

JohnnyMack
9/11/2011, 03:54 PM
Clinton (as was mentioned earlier) didn't choose to invade Iraq based on that intel. W did. Both were clearly wrong in their assessment of the intel they'd been provided.

SoonerProphet
9/11/2011, 05:55 PM
There were plenty of sources that had stated Iraq had no wmd's and the Saddam was contained.

Caboose
9/11/2011, 09:13 PM
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. <B>John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

dwarthog
9/12/2011, 08:28 AM
^^^^ Well done! ^^^^^

SoonerProphet
9/12/2011, 09:34 AM
This is the info provided by dip****s on capital hill who were covering their own asses.


“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added.

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

sappstuf
9/12/2011, 09:57 AM
This is the info provided by dip****s on capital hill who were covering their own asses.


“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added.

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

So the same Jay Rockefeller that is saying Bush deliberately painted a worse picture is the same who said this:


We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

So before things went bad, he thought we had always underestimated Saddam in regards to weapons of mass destruction... But afterward, he blames Bush for... uh... Basically following Rockefeller's advice and not underestimating Saddam again..

I can even make a pretty strong case that If Al Gore would have been president instead of Bush that he would have invaded Iraq. Here is Gore in 2002.


Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize a international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Morveover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vial interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.

Al Gore sounds rather hawkish doesn't he?

sappstuf
9/12/2011, 09:58 AM
There were plenty of sources that had stated Iraq had no wmd's and the Saddam was contained.

So why did Clinton attack them? Does that make him a war criminal?

KantoSooner
9/12/2011, 10:19 AM
Considering that Saddam not onlly had, but used WMDs on his own people (gassing the Kurds), I think it pretty justified to presume he had other WMD programs underway.

Then you throw their continual struggle to blind the inspections into the mix and I would have found any declaration that Iraq had disarmed to be impossible to support prior to the US invastion.

You can argue whether it was a good idea, legally justified and executed etc, etc, regarding the invasion. Saddam's possession of WMD, however, can not be argued.

Ask the Kurds.

SoonerProphet
9/12/2011, 10:39 AM
So let me get this straight, some of you are confused/surprised that a politician would lie to create "facts" that set the course for bad policy? Really, yes Clinton, Gore, et. al are just as culpable in twisting the facts.

sappstuf
9/12/2011, 11:33 AM
So let me get this straight, some of you are confused/surprised that a politician would lie to create "facts" that set the course for bad policy? Really, yes Clinton, Gore, et. al are just as culpable in twisting the facts.

No that wouldn't surprise me. But the case had been made long before Bush came into office that Saddam needed to go. Clinton continually escalated actions against Saddam throughout his tenure based on information he was getting. It is hard to make the case that "Bush lied" with that history in mind.

badger
9/12/2011, 11:39 AM
Being around all of these 9/11 reminders this week, I can understand why the country would want to take a proactive approach to stopping potential terrorist threats. At the same time, many soldier lives were lost because of these proactive efforts, so it hurts either way :(

SoonerProphet
9/12/2011, 12:02 PM
The case had been made by whom, politicians or intel services? Evidence seems to indicate that W's administration used intel that supported their case but ignored others to waste billions on replacing a secular dictator. If you feel he, or Rockefeller, or any politician, didn't lie about Saddam, or didn't get swept up in the utter nonsense that was the run up to that war, then so be it.

pphilfran
9/12/2011, 12:26 PM
SH was a one of those kind of guys that always had to test the line drawn in the sand...he would stick his toe over and if you did nothing he would stick his whole foot...next thing you know he is on your couch drinking your beer and eating your BBQ...

BAsed on our passed policies and SH's history sooner or later we would have been in Iraq...

Ton Loc
9/12/2011, 12:30 PM
Not that it matters anyway but

My biggest surprise was that Bush didn't find "anything." If I was him I would have found some WMDs buried in the sand in the middle of nowhere. How they got there and who put them there could have been a mystery, but I would have "found" something.

Turd_Ferguson
9/12/2011, 12:38 PM
Not that it matters anyway but

My biggest surprise was that Bush didn't find "anything." If I was him I would have found some WMDs buried in the sand in the middle of nowhere. How they got there and who put them there could have been a mystery, but I would have "found" something.So, he's a ****tard for NOT lying to the Country...Go tit.

pphilfran
9/12/2011, 12:51 PM
Not that it matters anyway but

My biggest surprise was that Bush didn't find "anything." If I was him I would have found some WMDs buried in the sand in the middle of nowhere. How they got there and who put them there could have been a mystery, but I would have "found" something.

A "Nukes for Dummies" book would have probably worked...

Ton Loc
9/12/2011, 01:02 PM
So, he's a ****tard for NOT lying to the Country...Go tit.

Nah, I have no bad feelings for W. Hell, I can't get mad at most presidents. They get about 99% of the blame when they're are truly responsible for at most 33% (I'd say its more around 10%).

Basically, if the main reason you're going to war is WMDs (paraphrasing), then someone better find me some damn WMD's.

Sooner98
9/12/2011, 01:32 PM
So let me get this straight, some of you are confused/surprised that a politician would lie to create "facts" that set the course for bad policy? Really, yes Clinton, Gore, et. al are just as culpable in twisting the facts.

So, where was all of the apoplectic outrage from the left for Clinton, that was directed entirely against Bush from the years 2003-2008?

The answer, of course, is that it didn't exist, due to the fact that Bush had an (R) next to his name. Clinton had a (D) next to his name, so it was all good.

Using a national security issue and the deaths of thousands of soldiers to help your party get as many people elected as possible is utterly shameful and despicable.

SoonerProphet
9/12/2011, 01:51 PM
When Clinton bombed Kosovo and Iraq the right went ape ****, same thing for the left. Both sides play politics with national security, if you think otherwise delusion has set in.

sappstuf
9/12/2011, 03:35 PM
When Clinton bombed Kosovo and Iraq the right went ape ****, same thing for the left. Both sides play politics with national security, if you think otherwise delusion has set in.

I don't remember the right going ape**** about Kosovo. I googled it, but didn't find any quotes, it would be interesting to see what they said...

I also don't think you could put Kosovo in the same "national security" category as what the intelligence showed on Iraq.. Kosovo was just a civil war. Were people being massacred? I have no doubt, but when the Europeans could have literally driven over there in about 2 days and put a stop to it, it isn't really a concern of ours. But I don't blame Clinton for acting... He learned that lesson from Rwanda.. If you wait for the pusses in Europe to act, nobody will be alive when they get there.

From just a humanitarian aspect, it would be much easier to make a case for attacking Saddam than Kosovo. I think he killed about 5-10 times more of his own people.

sappstuf
9/12/2011, 04:03 PM
What a timely thread I created.. Travis Smiley, from the nonpartisan government funded NRP tried the ol' "Bush lied" tact today, very much like what we have been hearing from the left.


JOE SCARBOROUGH: Now guess what? People on the left disagree with what George W. Bush did. People on the right disagree with what Barack Obama did. But we as one nation at some point need to step back and be able to say: thank you President Obama, thank you President Bush. We haven't had another attack since 9-11 in this country, and that just didn't happen by coincidence. Would you disagree with that?

TAVIS SMILEY: I wouldn't disagree with that, but here is where--you know me, I'm going to stand on my truth the best I can, even with a formidable foe like you--intellectually that is. The reality is though that one of those guys lied to the American people. And when I say he lied, I mean his administration lied. When you want to talk about the security of this country, Joe, you cannot disconnect that, you can't not dismiss the fact that he got us in a war that is now the longest-running war in this country. Because his administration--say it, Joe--lied to the American people. They did not give us the proper information. We never did find a weapon of mass destruction.

SCARBOROUGH: That's not a lie.

SMILEY: It is a lie!

. . .

JON MEACHAM: Do you believe that George W. Bush intentionally lied to the American people?

SMILEY: The answer is I can't get inside of his head.

MEACHAM: But you said he lied!

SMILEY: I can't get inside of his head. When I say he lied, I'm looking at the facts, the facts of what they told--here's what I mean by lie. The facts of what they told the American people, juxtaposed against what we know now don't square. If you don't want to call that a lie --

SCARBOROUGH: It's not a lie.

MEACHAM: It was a mistake; it's a massive intelligence failure. But I do not believe, and believe me, the Bush world does not think of me as a friendly. I do not believe at any level George W. Bush intentionally lied to get us into Iraq.. . .

SCARBOROUGH: This is a president who I believe let people around him know he wanted to go to war in Iraq --

SMILEY: That's what I'm saying.

SCARBOROUGH: No, that's not what you're saying. No, you said he lied. So when George Tenet, the CIA Director, comes in to talk to him, and he says this is the evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction, and the President of the United States says to him, in there, is this all you have? Is this the best evidence you have? Because this isn't enough. And when you have the CIA Director standing up and waving his arms: Mr. President, it's a slam dunk--they have weapons of mass destruction. Saying that not in 2010. Saying that in 2002, a year after 9-11. Now if historians want to say that Tenet was doing that because he felt the pressure of Dick Cheney, etc., that's one thing. But historians will be hard-pressed to suggest that George W. Bush knew that he was lying to the American people when he told them that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

. . .

SMILEY: However you and Jon want to parse this, when you, to your point Joe, know there's something you want to do. When you make it clear that you want to go to war. When you think what the American people need right now is a swift and certain and severe response, and then you create a narrative to match what you want to do? You call that a lie, you call it misled, you call it a creation, you call it Disneyland. Call it whatever you want to call it! But you said that he knew he wanted to go to war. We all knew what he wanted to do. He thought that was the right thing to do: to have a swift, certain, severe response for the American people. Then you create a story to match that. Call it whatever you want to call it. I call it misleading. I call it lie. I call it making stuff up. I stand by that.

SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no, no, no. He didn't "create the narrative." The narrative was given to him by not only his intelligence, the CIA --

SMILEY: That's his administration!

SCARBOROUGH: It was given to him by British intelligence, intelligence all over the world. And by the way: what George W. Bush was hearing from intel in 2002? Democrats were saying in 1999, in 2000 and 2001. I can't beleive I'm having to say this again. Google it. The New York Times on the eve of George W. Bush's inauguration said Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, were his greatest threat. The Washington Post said the greatest foreign policy threat to George W. Bush on the eve of his inauguration was Saddam Hussein. And suddenly George W. Bush decides to go into Iraq, and suddenly, sides switch!

For a guy who is getting paid taxpayer dollars to be nonpartisan, he sure sounds a lot like the screeching Dems the past decade.

marfacowboy
9/12/2011, 04:22 PM
I don't really believe any of these politicians. And I also don't think any of these wars have much to do with "threats" to the U.S. as much as they have to do with financial interests. War is big business. Everything we do is about hemispheric financial control. We put people in power to do our bidding, almost always for financial concerns, and when they go crazy, out of control or go against our interests, we move 'em out. Either directly, as was the case with Iraq, or via proxy forces.
Thank god we have football to give us a mental break from all of their lies and BS.

SoonerProphet
9/12/2011, 05:55 PM
I don't remember the right going ape**** about Kosovo. I googled it, but didn't find any quotes, it would be interesting to see what they said....

Never heard Tom DeLay call it "the Clinton war', or when Hastert called U.S. forces under NATO, "Clinton's forces"? You must have missed Republican Senator Bob Smith say "the US should pull out now rather than get 'bogged down in wars that are not winnable.'


I also don't think you could put Kosovo in the same "national security" category as what the intelligence showed on Iraq.. Kosovo was just a civil war. Were people being massacred? I have no doubt, but when the Europeans could have literally driven over there in about 2 days and put a stop to it, it isn't really a concern of ours. But I don't blame Clinton for acting... He learned that lesson from Rwanda.. If you wait for the pusses in Europe to act, nobody will be alive when they get there.

From just a humanitarian aspect, it would be much easier to make a case for attacking Saddam than Kosovo. I think he killed about 5-10 times more of his own people.

Posted the Phase II report for you to read:

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Again, the intelligence did NOT show whatever "national security" category you try to wedge it into. Waging a war of choice cause he was a bad dude does not cut the mustard then or now. Its a bogus claim to avert our attention away from the massive cluster**** that was the intel community in the run up to the war. Plenty of bad dudes out there, we don't go off and drop tons of cash on removing them from power do we.

sappstuf
9/12/2011, 08:47 PM
Never heard Tom DeLay call it "the Clinton war', or when Hastert called U.S. forces under NATO, "Clinton's forces"? You must have missed Republican Senator Bob Smith say "the US should pull out now rather than get 'bogged down in wars that are not winnable.'



Posted the Phase II report for you to read:

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Again, the intelligence did NOT show whatever "national security" category you try to wedge it into. Waging a war of choice cause he was a bad dude does not cut the mustard then or now. Its a bogus claim to avert our attention away from the massive cluster**** that was the intel community in the run up to the war. Plenty of bad dudes out there, we don't go off and drop tons of cash on removing them from power do we.

If only Bush had said he couldn't link Saddam to 9/11....

Oh wait. He did.


But Bush, asked Friday about a 9-11 connection to Saddam, admitted, "I cannot make that claim."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2003/02/09/no-more-hide-and-seek.html

Strange that Rockefeller's commission didn't report that..

Hell, Rockefeller called Iraq an imminent threat...


There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.

So he believed Iraq was an imminent threat.. But I bet he at least wanted to wait for more intelligence... Right?


To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

Damnation.

GKeeper316
9/12/2011, 11:43 PM
most of the "intel" we had on saddam's wmd capabilities was given to us by guys saddam had chased out of iraq that really wanted him gone.

i blame the cia and nsa for the bad intel they didn't bother verifying, and for the administrations they reported to for not verifying the ****ty intel they were given by our team of monkey intelligence services.

SoonerProphet
9/13/2011, 06:30 AM
I'd be pretty careful at laying all the blame at the feet of our intel services. State and the DOE both dissented about the aluminum tubes. The German Federal intel services knew that Chalabi and the INC information was very flawed. DIA concluded, “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapon", as late as Sept 2002 .

Curly Bill
9/13/2011, 07:22 AM
I saw the Tavis Smiley dealio on Morning Joe - Scarborough kicked him around good for that, and also ol Mika or whatever the F her name is. It was really kinda tense.

SoonerProphet
9/13/2011, 03:03 PM
If only Bush had said he couldn't link Saddam to 9/11....

Oh wait. He did.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2003/02/09/no-more-hide-and-seek.html

Strange that Rockefeller's commission didn't report that..

Hell, Rockefeller called Iraq an imminent threat...



So he believed Iraq was an imminent threat.. But I bet he at least wanted to wait for more intelligence... Right?



Damnation.

Didn't read the dailybeast article, but didn't Cheney et. al. talk about Atta and a meeting in Prague and various other mistruths regarding the AQ connection? The rest of the article is complete fabrication, as we knew then and now.

Why the fixation on Rockefeller, he is a ********* who flutters in whatever direction the wind blows? The Phase II report was bi-partisan.

Seems pretty obvious to me that the Bush administration had its mind made up to go to war with Iraq and wasn't interested in hearing any dissenting opinions or intelligence that refuted their fixed policy agenda.

sappstuf
9/13/2011, 03:21 PM
Didn't read the dailybeast article, but didn't Cheney et. al. talk about Atta and a meeting in Prague and various other mistruths regarding the AQ connection? The rest of the article is complete fabrication, as we knew then and now.

Why the fixation on Rockefeller, he is a ********* who flutters in whatever direction the wind blows? The Phase II report was bi-partisan.

Seems pretty obvious to me that the Bush administration had its mind made up to go to war with Iraq and wasn't interested in hearing any dissenting opinions or intelligence that refuted their fixed policy agenda.

Newsweek and Daily Beast merged. It is the orginal Newsweek story. Bush flatly denied he could make that claim. Period. End of story. Why didn't the senate report acknowledge that? Must have not been THAT bi-partisan..

Bush lied! Except in that Newsweek article where he said he could not make the connection... People died!! I guess the truth doesn't always fit on a banner. Hell, they could have at least put "Bush lied. People died*"

You brought Rockefeller into the conversation by bring up that report. I just like to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the Dems on this issue. Hell, it sounds like Rockefeller would have attacked sooner than Bush did.

Before 9/11 EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMDs in the political world, on both sides of the isle. I don't doubt there was confusing intelligence.. There usually is. But the majority of the intelligence pointed at him have those weapons. It turns out the majority of the intelligence was wrong. That doesn't make Bush a liar about Saddam anymore than Clinton.

SoonerProphet
9/13/2011, 06:09 PM
Newsweek and Daily Beast merged. It is the orginal Newsweek story. Bush flatly denied he could make that claim. Period. End of story. Why didn't the senate report acknowledge that? Must have not been THAT bi-partisan..

Bush lied! Except in that Newsweek article where he said he could not make the connection... People died!! I guess the truth doesn't always fit on a banner. Hell, they could have at least put "Bush lied. People died*"

You brought Rockefeller into the conversation by bring up that report. I just like to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the Dems on this issue. Hell, it sounds like Rockefeller would have attacked sooner than Bush did.

Before 9/11 EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMDs in the political world, on both sides of the isle. I don't doubt there was confusing intelligence.. There usually is. But the majority of the intelligence pointed at him have those weapons. It turns out the majority of the intelligence was wrong. That doesn't make Bush a liar about Saddam anymore than Clinton.

I don't give two ****s what Cohen, Albright, or any other D said, they are proven liars as well. What about Cheney, Atta, and Prague? The NIE report that stated their was no reliable intel? You emphatic claim of "everyone" is flat out false, there was plenty of info out there that should have given policy planners pause. Alas, it didn't, and we have dropped coin we don't have on a war that had absolutely nothing to do with fighting the GWOT.

sappstuf
9/13/2011, 10:28 PM
I don't give two ****s what Cohen, Albright, or any other D said, they are proven liars as well. What about Cheney, Atta, and Prague? The NIE report that stated their was no reliable intel? You emphatic claim of "everyone" is flat out false, there was plenty of info out there that should have given policy planners pause. Alas, it didn't, and we have dropped coin we don't have on a war that had absolutely nothing to do with fighting the GWOT.

Are you dropping "Bush lied, people died"? As far as Cheney, Atta and Prague, I guess I will just go with the findings of the 9/11 commission..


These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001.

Bad intel? Probably. Somebody lying? Nah. I say we hear from Cheney himself when questioned by Tim Russert.


MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm...

Sounds a lot like the 9/11 commission doesn't it?

Cherry picking one report out of hundreds doesn't mean they "knew". The vast majority of all the reports going back into the 90s all thought Saddam had WMDs.

Mistakes were made. Nobody lied.

Caboose
9/14/2011, 08:24 PM
Before 9/11 EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMDs in the political world, on both sides of the isle. I don't doubt there was confusing intelligence.. There usually is. But the majority of the intelligence pointed at him have those weapons. It turns out the majority of the intelligence was wrong. That doesn't make Bush a liar about Saddam anymore than Clinton.

Just a slight correction.... Before it became politically convenient to say otherwise EVERYONE thought Saddam had WMD's. Period.