OT - Senate Intelligence Report Slams CIA for Iraq Intelligence Failures

[NoMyths]

Link: AP: Report Blames 'Group Think' for CIA Failures on Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/senate.intel.ap/index.html)

Excerpt:
"The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons -- were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday."

"Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the committee, told reporters that assessments that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong."

Full Text:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons -- were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday.

Intelligence analysts fell victim to "group think" assumptions that Iraq had weapons that it did not, concluded the bipartisan report.

Many factors contributing to those failures are ongoing problems within the U.S. intelligence community -- which cannot be fixed with more money alone, it said.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the committee, told reporters that assessments that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong.

"As the report will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence," he said.

"This was a global intelligence failure."

The report repeatedly blasts departing CIA Director George Tenet, accusing him of skewing advice to top policy-makers with the CIA's view and elbowing out dissenting views from other intelligence agencies overseen by the State or Defense departments.

It faulted Tenet for not personally reviewing Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, which contained since-discredited references to Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.

White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush on a campaign trip Friday, said the committee's report essentially "agrees with what we have said, which is we need to take steps to continue strengthening and reforming our intelligence capabilities so we are prepared to meet the new threats that we face in this day and age."

Tenet has resigned and leaves office Sunday.

Questionable information
Intelligence analysts worked from the assumption that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to make more, as well as trying to revive a nuclear weapons program.

Instead, investigations after the Iraq invasion have shown that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons program and no biological weapons, and only small amounts of chemical weapons have been found.

Analysts ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the report said.

"This 'group think' dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs," the report concluded.

Such assumptions also led analysts to inflate snippets of questionable information into broad declarations that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, the report said.

For example, speculation that the presence of one specialized truck could mean an effort to transfer chemical weapons was puffed up into a conclusion that Iraq was actively making chemical weapons, the report said.

Analysts also concluded that Iraq had a mobile biological weapons program based mainly on the since-discredited claims of one Iraqi defector code-named "Curve Ball," it said.

American agents did not have direct access to Curve Ball or his debriefers, but the source's information was expanded into the conclusion that Iraq had an advanced and active biological weapons program, the report said.

[rkmsuf]

I'd hit it.


...oops, wrong thread

[Bee]

more left wing propaganda! :D

[SunDancer]

more left wing propaganda! :D


Yay! :)

[Arles]

So, I guess UK, Australian, French, Russian, Israeli and German intelligence were also wrong. Not to mention the UN being completely off in their assessment back in 2001 and 2002.

It's scary that everyone in the world can be that wrong. Especially when there's no chance Saddam shipped out his WMDs before the Iraqi war started.

[Huckleberry]

So, I guess UK, Australian, French, Russian, Israeli and German intelligence were also wrong. Not to mention the UN being completely off in their assessment back in 2001 and 2002.

It's scary that everyone in the world can be that wrong. Especially when there's no chance Saddam shipped out his WMDs before the Iraqi war started.

Even better, by threatening war but being ill-prepared intelligence-wise, we may have allowed Saddam to ship all of the WMDs to American-hating enemies and their terrorists in other countries and now have absolutely no idea where they are!

Great spin. I feel much better now that there are WMDs out on the loose in terrorists' hands.

[Arles]

Even better, by threatening war but being ill-prepared intelligence-wise, we may have allowed Saddam to ship all of the WMDs to American-hating enemies and their terrorists in other countries and now have absolutely no idea where they are!

I would change that to going through the 3-4 month farce with the UN allowed Saddam plenty of time to hide his weapons. Had the US actions begun the assault back in November when the Senate passed the use of force, perhaps we would have caught Saddam red-handed.


Great spin. I feel much better now that there are WMDs out on the loose in terrorists' hands.

Seems like this should be the focus of a government investigation (ie, where did the weapons we know he had go) instead of looking for a fall guy to enforce the myth that Saddam never possessed WMD or a panel parade trying to blame people for the trajedy of 9-11. Then again, neither democrats or republicans can point a finger in that type of investigation.

And that simply will not do in an election season.

[Bee]

So, I guess UK, Australian, French, Russian, Israeli and German intelligence were also wrong. Not to mention the UN being completely off in their assessment back in 2001 and 2002.

It's scary that everyone in the world can be that wrong. Especially when there's no chance Saddam shipped out his WMDs before the Iraqi war started.

So it's ok that we ignored conflicting information because other countries assumed Iraq had WMDs?

and yes...in case you missed it...Analysts ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

I'm going to assume that you are in complete agreement with me on all future issues and ignore and discount any conflicting information I see to the contrary. :D

[Arles]

What I am saying is that onus was on Saddam to prove the UN that he no longer possessed WMDs, according the UN resolution. We knew he had them in the 90s, and he provided no evidence to the UN on what had done to dispose of them, did not let inspectors everywhere in Iraq and refused to let his scientists be interviewed in the manner requested.

The options were to trust Saddam or go into Iraq. Now, I certainly understand that some of the CIA sources didn't pan out and that should be investigated. But, that does not change the fact that the onus was on Saddam to show how he had disposed of the weapons to adhere to UN resolution 1441, not the US to prove he still had them.

[Chubby]

We knew he had them in the 90s, and he provided no evidence to the UN on what had done to dispose of them, did not let inspectors everywhere in Iraq and refused to let his scientists be interviewed in the manner requested.



Of course we "knew" he had them now too didn't we? Oops wait, he didn't.

[Swaggs]

What I am saying is that onus was on Saddam to prove the UN that he no longer possessed WMDs, according the UN resolution. We knew he had them in the 90s, and he provided no evidence to the UN on what had done to dispose of them, did not let inspectors everywhere in Iraq and refused to let his scientists be interviewed in the manner requested.

The options were to trust Saddam or go into Iraq. Now, I certainly understand that some of the CIA sources didn't pan out and that should be investigated. But, that does not change the fact that the onus was on Saddam to show how he had disposed of the weapons to adhere to UN resolution 1441, not the US to prove he still had them.

While I don't disagree with you on the burden being on Saddam, still, shouldn't we have been a little more throrough before committing 130,000 soldiers and 10s of billions of dollars?

[Fritz]

Kerry and Edwards Gay Lovers?

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryk.htm

----
this has no place in this thread, but NM is cross posting in one of mine, so fuck em

[Ksyrup]

"Senate...Slams CIA"

This is playing to the anti-homo crowd.

[Fritz]

tinkle

[Arles]

While I don't disagree with you on the burden being on Saddam, still, shouldn't we have been a little more throrough before committing 130,000 soldiers and 10s of billions of dollars?
Perhaps, but I think 12 years and 17 UN resolutions showed enough patience. And, given the change in the world that occurred after 9-11, I don't know that you can play the waiting game with terroristic states anymore.

[Ksyrup]

Moving this over from the Republican/homo fest...

And then back to the "early 90s, Clinton" argument. Yeah, he may have thought he had him. What he decided to do about it (hint: not send in a 130,000-strong invasion force) evidently kept him from getting any of the chemical or nuclear weapons we were threatened with by the current administration. The argument that I and others made before the war was that we needed to take the time to let the inspection process play out and look for a better solution to the situation than sending our troops into the Middle East for bad reasons. As I have also said, it may have later proven necessary to send in the troops...for better reasons. Instead, the administration threatened us with WMD that didn't exist.

Hindsight's nice, isn't it? Clinton sat on his hands while Saddam ignored or violated a number of UN resolutions. But hey, we're all for the global unity thing, so let's keep letting the UN drive this thing, right? Finally, we get to the point where the guy continues to ignore/violate UN resolutions, and something has to be done about it, doesn't it?

He agreed to dispose of WMD. If he had none to dispose of, why would he agree to that? He failed to show proof that he had done so. Instead, he somehow put the burden back on us to prove he ever had them to begin with, which years earlier, he agreed he did.

In my opinion, either Bush or Gore would have been forced to do something under the same scenario. Continuing to search for something that may or may not exist, but which did exist at one time, and which Saddam agreed to get rid of but refused to provide details of, makes the world damned irresponsible if it doesn't take action.

Bottom line is, Saddam agreed to get rid of WMD. He stalled, he refused to provide details of what he may have done, he ignored and violated a number of UN resolutions, and then, at the last moment when faced with an invasion, he claimed he didn't have them and/or disposed of them, at a time when he obviously had absolutely no credibility (if he had any to begin with).

It's unfortunate that the scenario played itself out the way it did. Next time, our intelligence could (should) be better, and if accurate and we let the international community drag their feet for years longer, the results could be far worse than 1000 dead soliders in 15 months.

[Bee]

Oh cool! We're back to the UN resolution argument instead of the argument that he was a threat because of his WMDs. :D

BTW, the US intelligence community as a whole wasn't that bad of a failure. The Intelligence sections of the State and Defense Department both actually disagreed with the CIA analysts, but they were shouted down by Tenet and company (or ignored by the administration if you want to go with that spin).

It's all just a vast right wing conspiracy...or left wing propaganda. (Sorry, I get them confused)

[Buddy Grant]

IMO if a country breaks or ignores UN resolutions and supports terrorist organizations then they deserve to be attacked. Unless the country in question is the US of course.

[Ksyrup]

Oh cool! We're back to the UN resolution argument instead of the argument that he was a threat because of his WMDs.
I think they went hand-in-hand. Intelligence indicating that he had WMD + decade-long violations of numerous UN resolutions = time to act.

[gstelmack]

IMO if a country breaks or ignores UN resolutions and supports terrorist organizations then they deserve to be attacked. Unless the country in question is the US of course.
Those are serious charges. Care to list?

[Glengoyne]

Oh cool! We're back to the UN resolution argument instead of the argument that he was a threat because of his WMDs. :D
...

Never left it. That was the biggest reason I was behind the war. I was actually a bit annoyed that the admin picked WMD as the poster boy for war. The other reasons were always there, but they chose to champion WMD ahead of the others.

[Noop]

I know some might not agree with this opinion but... I believe they did find WMD but because it had english written on them or the chemicals, nuclear stuff can be traced back to the U.S. they figured it would be best to say it is not there. I mean imagine the type of reaction it would get to know that the U.S. gave Iraq WMD's....then again it would be sweeped under the rug and forgotten so speak... Just my opinion....

[Bee]

Of course the flaw with the UN argument is they didn't actually want us to invade Iraq...but hey what the hell do they know? We know what's best for everyone. Right?

[Ksyrup]

Of course the flaw with the UN argument is they didn't actually want us to invade Iraq...but hey what the hell do they know? We know what's best for everyone. Right?
We know what's best for us. I don't really care whether they wanted us to invade or not.

[clintl]

The problem with the UN resolution argument is that the UN never authorized an invasion to enforce it. And only the UN has the legal authority to decide how to enforce its resolutions.

[Dutch]

That's not entirely fair. Veto power from France and Russia is what stopped the resolution. Two countries that (as we are finding out from the Oil for Food Scandal) had very real reasons to disallow the resolutions from being enforced by the USA.

[Ksyrup]

That's a problem with the UN. I don't see it as problem for us.

AS toothless and gutless as the UN is, do you really want to allow that body the authority to decide when we act in our best interests? I don't have aproblem with giving them the first shot, but when they repeatedly fail to make any significant progress or move toward the action that needs to be taken...screw them. They don't have our best interests in mind.

[Dutch]

In any event, all of this Intelligence blundering should allow us to put the CIA back in control of fighting for our national security by whatever means possible.

And that includes HUMINT. That includes HUMINT with the bad guys. The good guys (or better worded, the bad guys enemies) apparently are telling the world intelligence agencies whatever they want to hear. We need to work with all sorts of characters to establish what's really going on out there in this world. I honestly don't think that how we go about figuring that out should be up for debate anymore, because the public opinion of the matter is what got our HUMINT into such bad shape to begin with.

And to top it off, I'm glad that Saddam Hussein doesn't have the stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons. I'm glad we know the truth. We can thank George Bush for that. ;)

[Chubby]

That's a problem with the UN. I don't see it as problem for us.

AS toothless and gutless as the UN is, do you really want to allow that body the authority to decide when we act in our best interests? I don't have aproblem with giving them the first shot, but when they repeatedly fail to make any significant progress or move toward the action that needs to be taken...screw them. They don't have our best interests in mind.

Their role isn't to have our best interests in mind.

So now the argument is "Everyone else is suppose to follow the UN, except for us"?

[clintl]

That's not entirely fair. Veto power from France and Russia is what stopped the resolution. Two countries that (as we are finding out from the Oil for Food Scandal) had very real reasons to disallow the resolutions from being enforced by the USA.

Yes, it is entirely fair. That's how the UN rules were written - US, Russia, France, China, and Britain have veto power over Security Council resolutions. If you don't think that the US routinely uses its veto power to kill resolutions and enforcement actions it doesn't like, then you haven't been paying attention, because it does, and would never consent to a rules change that took veto power away from the five permanent Security Council members.

[John Galt]

That's not entirely fair. Veto power from France and Russia is what stopped the resolution. Two countries that (as we are finding out from the Oil for Food Scandal) had very real reasons to disallow the resolutions from being enforced by the USA.

You mean like the US vetoing almost every negative resolution against Israel. I assume it would be legitimate for Russia to say Israel isn't compliant (including being non-compliant with the same WMD resolutions Iraq isn't), the UN isn't acting, and unilaterally invade Israel.

It is always astounding to me when political realists who act independent of any international authority still appeal to international law when it suits their purposes. At least be honest - the UN argument is irrelevant.

[Ksyrup]

Their role isn't to have our best interests in mind.

So now the argument is "Everyone else is suppose to follow the UN, except for us"?
I'm saying the UN has proven that it is not effective in dealing with issues and is a worthless institution. I wouldn't expect any other country to act against its own interests (or fail to act to protect its own interests) simply because the UN wouldn't support that country.

[clintl]

That's a problem with the UN. I don't see it as problem for us.

AS toothless and gutless as the UN is, do you really want to allow that body the authority to decide when we act in our best interests? I don't have aproblem with giving them the first shot, but when they repeatedly fail to make any significant progress or move toward the action that needs to be taken...screw them. They don't have our best interests in mind.

Then don't use the UN resolutions as a justification. As Chubby said, the UN's purpose is not to do what is in the best interest of any individual member.

[clintl]

I'm saying the UN has proven that it is not effective in dealing with issues and is a worthless institution. I wouldn't expect any other country to act against its own interests (or fail to act to protect its own interests) simply because the UN wouldn't support that country.

I think that subsequent events validated the UN's position that the inspectors be given more time, since David Kay came to exactly the same conclusions as Hans Blix.

[Ksyrup]

Then don't use the UN resolutions as a justification. As Chubby said, the UN's purpose is not to do what is in the best interest of any individual member.
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

[Dutch]

You mean like the US vetoing almost every negative resolution against Israel.

Exactly like that. I have been a proponent of removing the veto powers of 5 nations since as long as I understood them (of course, I admit, my early rationalization was because of the Soviet Union). I can certainly see how the USA veto power is just as unforgivable.

The Palestinian issue is just as unforgivable as allowing a rogue nation such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq to continue doing what it does best.

[clintl]

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but they don't necessarily always coincide, either. And when they don't, what right does the US have to act as the UN's enforcer without the UN's consent?

[Glengoyne]

You mean like the US vetoing almost every negative resolution against Israel. ...


I don't think you can honestly say that the majority of the proposed anti-Israel resolutions aren't actually anti-semitic. Also this is a particularly bad straw-man because the comparison doesn't hold. None of the ridiculous anti-Israel motions have passed. Iraq was in violation of a number of resolutions that had passed, and were actually in place.

The bottom line with the U.N. is that they didn't have the spine to stand up to Saddam who was thumbing his nose at the U.N.. I believe that Frace and Russia were acting more in their own self interest than in the interest of peace, when they vetoed the resolution authorizing the invasion. It is arguable whether France was trying to reign in the United States because they feel that the rest of the world is becoming insignificant, or if they were simply wanting to sustain a gravy train of lucrative business dealings.

Also, If Russia invaded Israel, they'd get their ass kicked.

[Chubby]

I don't think you can honestly say that the majority of the proposed anti-Israel resolutions aren't actually anti-semitic. Also this is a particularly bad straw-man because the comparison doesn't hold. None of the ridiculous anti-Israel motions have passed. Iraq was in violation of a number of resolutions that had passed, and were actually in place.

The bottom line with the U.N. is that they didn't have the spine to stand up to Saddam who was thumbing his nose at the U.N.. I believe that Frace and Russia were acting more in their own self interest than in the interest of peace, when they vetoed the resolution authorizing the invasion. It is arguable whether France was trying to reign in the United States because they feel that the rest of the world is becoming insignificant, or if they were simply wanting to sustain a gravy train of lucrative business dealings.

Also, If Russia invaded Israel, they'd get their ass kicked.


So we are now the sole decider of policy for the UN? I fail to see how you can justify action against UN violations without UN approval.

"It is arguable whether France was trying to reign in the United States because they feel that the rest of the world is becoming insignificant" - You mean like the US doing whatever they want without UN approval?

[Glengoyne]

So we are now the sole decider of policy for the UN? I fail to see how you can justify action against UN violations without UN approval.

"It is arguable whether France was trying to reign in the United States because they feel that the rest of the world is becoming insignificant" - You mean like the US doing whatever they want without UN approval?
I think France might be going through an inferiority complex.


Not that I blame them.

Oh and we weren't the sole decider. We had a coalition!;)

[Swaggs]

Perhaps, but I think 12 years and 17 UN resolutions showed enough patience. And, given the change in the world that occurred after 9-11, I don't know that you can play the waiting game with terroristic states anymore.

I can understand that point of view, but I just haven't seen any evidence to indicate that they were an immediate terrorist threat to us and, therefore, not worth spending so much of our military and budget resources on while we were also in Afghanistan chasing bin Laden.

[Bee]

When the invasion started I was torn between supporting it and not. There just wasn't much info out there and I didn't like the way the US bypassed the UN to "enforce" the UN's own resolution. But to be honest, I thought we probably had definitive information that Iraq had WMDs and that being the case I felt we would be justified in the action we took in Iraq. In fact, on this message board I said basically that I had my doubts about not going back to the UN and getting full support, but if we found WMDs or extensive Nuclear programs I felt we were justified in our actions even without the support of some of our allies. That didn't happen and now we are finding out that not only did we not have definitive information but the CIA ignored conflicting information about the WMDs and also ignored other American intelligence agencies that came to different conclusions about the WMDs. I don't mind going vigilante on someone's ass when necessary, but before we do I'd like to have some concrete information and not conflicting information and differing opinions inside our own government.

[Dutch]

I can understand that point of view, but I just haven't seen any evidence to indicate that they were an immediate terrorist threat to us and, therefore, not worth spending so much of our military and budget resources on while we were also in Afghanistan chasing bin Laden.

One of the lessons of 9/11 is that we won't get a warning. That the people who intend to harm us are pretty secretive about their operations.

Another lesson was that our enemies "discovered" global reach and the ability to inflict mass fear and subsequently mass economic damage to our nation. Something that we could ill afford to handle repeatedly.

Something that we all believed Saddam Hussein was pursuing since 1991.

[Chubby]

One of the lessons of 9/11 is that we won't get a warning. That the people who intend to harm us are pretty secretive about their operations.

Another lesson was that our enemies "discovered" global reach and the ability to inflict mass fear and subsequently mass economic damage to our nation. Something that we could ill afford to handle repeatedly.

Something that we all believed Saddam Hussein was pursuing since 1991.

So anyone we "think" could be a threat can be invaded/assinated without international support or outside international law right? That's the precedent you want set right?

Nevermind that pesky evidence thing, we can just go on hunches and ignore any contrary evidence.

[Dutch]

Neither I nor President Bush has suggested the invasion of Chile.

[SFL Cat]

I believe the Senate "Intelligence" Committee is, at best, playing Monday morning QB, at worst, it is covering its own rear posterior. They have access to the same information the administration does...and the last time I looked, Congress gave the president authorization to move against Iraq.

[Flasch186]

Perhaps, but I think 12 years and 17 UN resolutions showed enough patience. And, given the change in the world that occurred after 9-11, I don't know that you can play the waiting game with terroristic states anymore.

By definition before the war they werent terroristic....Genocidal yes, terroristic no. NOW theyre terroristic but not genocidal. Ironic.


and had the Senate had all of the information wihtout the conlusion already in it that the Admin. had to go to war thereby skewing thatb informations direction, to quote senator Rockefeller, they never wouldve approved the use of force at that time.

[Dutch]

By definition before the war they werent terroristic....Genocidal yes, terroristic no. NOW theyre terroristic but not genocidal. Ironic.

When did Saddam Hussein get cleared of causing the deaths of 1 million people?

[Tekneek]

U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

[Dutch]

I don't see the UN busting their asses to get that one worked out. But we have seen the USA "unilaterally" get embarrassed over trying to solve it for the UN under Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, and now Bush Jr.. Damned Americans, always trying to enforce that "talky" organization's gripes.

[Tekneek]

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

This is an interesting read, at least. I'm not sure that the US actually vetoed all of those resolutions, but most of them look like ones that they would veto.

[duckman]

I personally don't care about WMD's, but I do care about is the millions of Iraqis suffering due to the rule of the Hussein regime. This man raped, killed, and pillaged his OWN people. He had threaten to attack his neighbors and proved in the past that he would do so. Those are my reasons for going to war and I believe that they are good ones.

[Chubby]

I personally don't care about WMD's, but I do care about is the millions of Iraqis suffering due to the rule of the Hussein regime. This man raped, killed, and pillaged his OWN people. He had threaten to attack his neighbors and proved in the past that he would do so. Those are my reasons for going to war and I believe that they are good ones.

There are lots of those types of leaders in the world, some of which we support. We'll be invading lots of countries in the near future with that way of thinking.

[Dutch]

There are lots of those types of leaders in the world, some of which we support. We'll be invading lots of countries in the near future with that way of thinking.

I disagree. I don't think any other current leaders come close to Saddam Hussein.

[Chubby]

I disagree. I don't think any other current leaders come close to Saddam Hussein.

What's the country with the ethnic cleansing going on right now, Sudan?

[Joe Canadian]

The UN is evil!!!! They are useless!!! They won't agree with the US all the time when they want to invade other countries, what's up with that?? I think every country (even the evil one's) whould be able to invade any damn country they want... no matter how suspect we think the eividence is!!!!

:rolleyes:

[duckman]

There are lots of those types of leaders in the world, some of which we support. We'll be invading lots of countries in the near future with that way of thinking.
I think that it has been US policy to deal with genocide. We handle it when we went into Kosovo and Iraq. I supported the Kosovo conflict when President Clinton was running the show and I supported the Iraq conflict when President Bush was calling the shots. It is our job to make sure that another Nazi Germany does ever happen again.

[duckman]

The UN is evil!!!! They are useless!!! They won't agree with the US all the time when they want to invade other countries, what's up with that?? I think every country (even the evil one's) whould be able to invade any damn country they want... no matter how suspect we think the eividence is!!!!

:rolleyes:So we're supposed to wait until Saddam just give a terrorist group a WMD and let them used it on us before we do anything? :rolleyes:

[Chubby]

I think that it has been US policy to deal with genocide. We handle it when we went into Kosovo and Iraq. I supported the Kosovo conflict when President Clinton was running the show and I supported the Iraq conflict when President Bush was calling the shots. It is our job to make sure that another Nazi Germany does ever happen again.

The UN went into Kosovo not us, we went into Iraq unilaterally without UN support. Big difference.

That's a big leap, now Iraq = Nazi Germany? That's a joke.

[Chubby]

So we're supposed to wait until Saddam just give a terrorist group a WMD and let them used it on us before we do anything? :rolleyes:

You must have missed the news the last couple of months. He didn't have any, OR he already gave them away to terrorists. if it's the latter, then we did exactly what you questioned.

[duckman]

The UN went into Kosovo not us, we went into Iraq unilaterally without UN support. Big difference.
Actually, it was NATO who used their military might and the UN took over when the cease fire was agreed upon.

That's a big leap, now Iraq = Nazi Germany? That's a joke.
Lets see! Iraq first attacked Iran in hopes of annexing the country, but failed, then annexed Kuwait. Later, they began to build up troops for an invasion of Saudi Arabia before the US stepped in during the Gulf War.

Sounds awfully familiar. :p

[Chubby]

Actually, it was NATO who used their military might and the UN took over when the cease fire was agreed upon.


Lets see! Iraq first attacked Iran in hopes of annexing the country, but failed, then annexed Kuwait. Later, they began to build up troops for an invasion of Saudi Arabia before the US stepped in during the Gulf War.

Sounds awfully familiar. :p

It does? I was under the impression that Germany actually WON battles... (checks history books) Iraw didn't do anything with Kuwait, that was the whole reason we went to the Middle East under Bush I, to stop Iraq from taking over Kuwait.

NATO is still NOT the US, and NATO had a UN ok when they went in if I'm not mistaken. Still a big difference from our current "we'll do whatever we want and no one should say any different" attitude.

[duckman]

You must have missed the news the last couple of months. He didn't have any, OR he already gave them away to terrorists. if it's the latter, then we did exactly what you questioned.
The pissing match we had with Russia, France, and Germany was the reason we didn't catch them red handed. We gave them ample time (over a year) to get rid of or hide their WMD's. If we had gone in there when we should have then we wouldn't even be disgusting this.

[Glengoyne]

... I supported the Kosovo conflict when President Clinton was running the show and I supported the Iraq conflict when President Bush was calling the shots. ...


War monger!


Well I fit in this boat as well. I do believe that the Civilized nations of the world need to step in and police the occasional human rights situation.

I was 100% behind Clinton on Kosovo.
I was 100% behind Bush in Iraq
I was 100% against abandoning the people of Somalia.
I was appalled that we did nothing durning the Rwandan genocide.
I think leaving Lebanon after our Marine living quarters was bombed might have been Reagan's biggest mistake as President.

Geeze, I am war monger.

[Chubby]

The pissing match we had with Russia, France, and Germany was the reason we didn't catch them red handed. We gave them ample time (over a year) to get rid of or hide their WMD's. If we had gone in there when we should have then we wouldn't even be disgusting this.
It's not up to us to be the sole decider or UN policy, it's not our job!

[duckman]

It does? I was under the impression that Germany actually WON battles... (checks history books) Iraw didn't do anything with Kuwait, that was the whole reason we went to the Middle East under Bush I, to stop Iraq from taking over Kuwait.
Actually, you need to check your history books again. Iraq had control of Kuwait and that is why we went in there. Also, I was saying that he was instituting the same policy of annexing countries, not that they were as successful.

NATO is still NOT the US, and NATO had a UN ok when they went in if I'm not mistaken. Still a big difference from our current "we'll do whatever we want and no one should say any different" attitude.
When we were 90% of the force then yes we are the force. The UN did not passed a resolution for force. European NATO countries passed a resolution and asked us to help with the operations.

[duckman]

It's not up to us to be the sole decider or UN policy, it's not our job!
I care about US policy, not UN policy. US policy states we get handle any potential (key word) threats. If you actually thought that Iraq wasn't chomping at the bit to get at us then you are just a pacifist.

[Chubby]

Actually, you need to check your history books again. Iraq had control of Kuwait and that is why we went in there. Also, I was saying that he was instituting the same policy of annexing countries, not that they were as successful.


When we were 90% of the force then yes we are the force. The UN did not passed a resolution for force. European NATO countries passed a resolution and asked us to help with the operations.

It doesn't matter if we're 99% of the force, we still didn't go in there because we alone wanted to (or we alone along with a persuaded Britain). Big difference.

I don't pretend to be a history professor but to compare Iraq to Nazi Germany is a HUGE stretch.

[Chubby]

I care about US policy, not UN policy. US policy states we get handle any potential (key word) threats. If you actually thought that Iraq wasn't chomping at the bit to get at us then you are just a pacifist.


Again the "We can do whatever we want" theory.

Why is it that we somehow should be able to do whatever we want and disregard the UN and international law but everyone else must follow it?

Chomping at the bit? We destroyed them before and we did it now, why would they want to go to war with us? Again, nothing to back up your assertions.

I firmly believe that Saddam's whole goal was to make us look stupid. He knew eventually we'd take him out so why not make us look bad in the process? That's why he fought the weapons inspectors for so long, just to be a pain in the ass.

[Joe Canadian]

So we're supposed to wait until Saddam just give a terrorist group a WMD and let them used it on us before we do anything? :rolleyes:

Could you please point me to proof that Saddam was activly trying to attack the United States?

[duckman]

I don't pretend to be a history professor but to compare Iraq to Nazi Germany is a HUGE stretch.
If we had left them alone and allowed them to produced WMD then they would have easily taken the region.

[Chubby]

If we had left them alone and allowed them to produced WMD then they would have easily taken the region.


How? Israel has weapons of mass destruction and they haven't taken the region.

You have no proof for this. They had chemical weapons and they couldn't take Iran.

We are NOT the judge, jury, and executioner for the world. This is why countries hate us.

[duckman]

Could you please point me to proof that Saddam was activly trying to attack the United States?
Well, they did try to assassinate former President Bush, but was caught by a foregin agency. That alone could be an act of war in itself.

[Chubby]

Well, they did try to assassinate former President Bush, but was caught by a foregin agency. That alone could be an act of war in itself.
Well shit, then we've gone to war with a LOT of coutries if that's the new criteria. Or are you saying we've never tried to assassinate a leader?

[duckman]

How? Israel has weapons of mass destruction and they haven't taken the region.
Israel wants to be a peaceful autonomous country. They do want the West Bank and Gaza Strip because they consider it 'holy land'. Also, they never used WMD on anyone. They are a deterent to keep other Middle Eastern countries from invading.

You have no proof for this. They had chemical weapons and they couldn't take Iran.
They attempted to and that is all the proof I need. They were in the infancy of their WMD program. If they had gotten a hold of a nuclear weapon, then the outcome would have been much different.

We are NOT the judge, jury, and executioner for the world. This is why countries hate us.
I never said that. I said that we should what is best for our country and that is take out any threat that could endanger American civilians.

[duckman]

Well shit, then we've gone to war with a LOT of coutries if that's the new criteria. Or are you saying we've never tried to assassinate a leader?
Not since the 1970's.

[Chubby]

Not since the 1970's.

Oh so that's ok then? :rolleyes:

[Chubby]

I never said that. I said that we should what is best for our country and that is take out any threat that could endanger American civilians.


That IS the "we can do whatever we want" mentality.

Again, why can we break international law and defy the UN and say others can't?

[duckman]

Oh so that's ok then? :rolleyes:
If it's a tyrannical dictator, then I have no real problem with it.

[duckman]

That IS the "we can do whatever we want" mentality.

Again, why can we break international law and defy the UN and say others can't?
We don't go hurting people because "we can". If international law is making where we can't protect ourselves from threats then the laws have failed everyone.

[Chubby]

If it's a tyrannical dictator, then I have no real problem with it.

Let me guess who gets to decide who is tyrannical and who isn't, the US? If Saddam thought Bush was tyrannical then is it ok?

[Chubby]

We don't go hurting people because "we can". If international law is making where we can't protect ourselves from threats then the laws have failed everyone.

So then we don't have to abide by the laws?

So does that mean that Iraq didn't have to abide by the laws either? Well, I guess it's ok they defied UN resolutions then because the laws failed everyone right?

[duckman]

Let me guess who gets to decide who is tyrannical and who isn't, the US? If Saddam thought Bush was tyrannical then is it ok?
President Bush never used nerve gas on his own people, beat, rape, or tortured people for the sure thrill of it.

[Chubby]

President Bush never used nerve gas on his own people, beat, rape, or tortured people for the sure thrill of it.

Nope, just POW's. Oh wait, that's junior.

Funny the UN never said it was ok to take out Saddam. But again, it's not what others think it's only what the US thinks right?

[duckman]

So then we don't have to abide by the laws?

So does that mean that Iraq didn't have to abide by the laws either? Well, I guess it's ok they defied UN resolutions then because the laws failed everyone right?
If they don't do what they are intended to do, then no. We have a God given right to protect ourselves, not be lay victim for every rogue nation to come along and attack us.

Iraq defied the laws so they could build WMD's for the sole purpose of threatening their neighbors into surrending and becoming apart of this "Persian Empire" that Saddam wanted to build.

[Tekneek]

As far as stepping in to prevent genocide, when did we go into Rwanda? That was raging for quite a while with ZERO involvement from the US government. This tells me that we do not have a policy of intervening in all matters of genocide.

[duckman]

Nope, just POW's. Oh wait, that's junior.

Funny the UN never said it was ok to take out Saddam. But again, it's not what others think it's only what the US thinks right?
We'll just have agree to disagree.

[Glengoyne]

Again the "We can do whatever we want" theory.

Why is it that we somehow should be able to do whatever we want and disregard the UN and international law but everyone else must follow it?


You know it isn't "we can do whatever we want." It is we will do whatever we think we need to. And yes we can thumb our nose at the rest of the world while we do it, because honestly we CAN decide if it needs to be done. I actually trust the government, the congress and the president, whether Republican or Democrat to evaluate and decide when to use millitary force. I count on them to make every effort to protect our interests here and abroad, as well as the citizens of other nations when required. I don't think this kind of thing is done lightly. I believe they take it seriously.

I don't have any trouble with going to war in Iraq. I don't have a problem with the fact that we haven't found more than minor evidence of WMD. I don't have a problem with the fact that our pre-war intelligence was so poor, well at least I don't see any point in blaming anyone for it, I just want that problem fixed. I do have a problem with the fact that the Bush administration hasn't mentioned how this intelligence failure affects the new policy of preemption. I mean I trust that they will be more careful vetting intelligence in the future, but it kind of bothers me that no one has come out and said as much.

[Dutch]

The UN went into Kosovo not us, we went into Iraq unilaterally without UN support. Big difference.

That's a big leap, now Iraq = Nazi Germany? That's a joke.

Then why did the UN have sanctions on Iraq? Just to keep them down, I suppose? Why Iraq and not Sudan? And isn't the work that President Bush Sr. and President Bush Jr. really the reason Saddam Hussein is a joke compared to Adolf Hitler?

[Tekneek]

President Bush never used nerve gas on his own people, beat, rape, or tortured people for the sure thrill of it.

People under his command have beaten, raped, and tortured in Iraq. So, unless we know that Saddam personally ordered beatings, rapings, and tortures, he is no more guilty of that than George W. Bush is.

[duckman]

As far as stepping in to prevent genocide, when did we go into Rwanda? That was raging for quite a while with ZERO involvement from the US government. This tells me that we do not have a policy of intervening in all matters of genocide.
Yes, we do. Politicans interpet laws as they see fit and they decided that Rwanda was too much of a burden and chose language in the policy to suit their needs.

[Dutch]

People under his command have beaten, raped, and tortured in Iraq. So, unless we know that Saddam personally ordered beatings, rapings, and tortures, he is no more guilty of that than George W. Bush is.

Saddam did. It was quite clear that he did, yet, there was no court martials, no disciplinary action, no accountability. He insisted upon it to keep fear into his enemies. Why didn't the Shiite's ever protest while Saddam was in power? Why didn't the Kurds? Fear and death. That's why.

Compare Saddam to a US President? For partisan politics? You need to take a step back and take a deep breath.

[Chubby]

If they don't do what they are intended to do, then no. We have a God given right to protect ourselves, not be lay victim for every rogue nation to come along and attack us.

Iraq defied the laws so they could build WMD's for the sole purpose of threatening their neighbors into surrending and becoming apart of this "Persian Empire" that Saddam wanted to build.

What attack were we protecting ourselves from?

We don't have the right to go into any country we want and attack them because they don't like us.

WHAT WMDs????? The one's we can't find? The one's that everyone is continually saying didn't exist?

Stick with an argument either it's "well he hurt his own people" or "well he sponsored terrorism" or "well he may have been able to get WMDs". Pick one, it's a constant circle to continually change the defense of our action.

Besides, it's much better for us when we can take out leaders we don't like and install one's we do right?

[Tekneek]

Yes, we do. Politicans interpet laws as they see fit and they decided that Rwanda was too much of a burden and chose language in the policy to suit their needs.

Oh, so we don't really have an obligation to intervene in matters of genocide? I knew that anyway, but that argument was put forward as a reason for war in this thread. It's time that was properly debunked.

[duckman]

You know it isn't "we can do whatever we want." It is we will do whatever we think we need to. And yes we can thumb our nose at the rest of the world while we do it, because honestly we CAN decide if it needs to be done. I actually trust the government, the congress and the president, whether Republican or Democrat to evaluate and decide when to use millitary force. I count on them to make every effort to protect our interests here and abroad, as well as the citizens of other nations when required. I don't think this kind of thing is done lightly. I believe they take it seriously.

I don't have any trouble with going to war in Iraq. I don't have a problem with the fact that we haven't found more than minor evidence of WMD. I don't have a problem with the fact that our pre-war intelligence was so poor, well at least I don't see any point in blaming anyone for it, I just want that problem fixed. I do have a problem with the fact that the Bush administration hasn't mentioned how this intelligence failure affects the new policy of preemption. I mean I trust that they will be more careful vetting intelligence in the future, but it kind of bothers me that no one has come out and said as much.
Whew! Reinforcements. :)

[Tekneek]

Saddam did.

You have this proof? By all means, share it with me and I may very well agree with you.

[Chubby]

Saddam did.
Thank you for that stunning display of proof.

While you're at it, prove Bush didn't order it.

[Dutch]

Stick with an argument either it's "well he hurt his own people" or "well he sponsored terrorism" or "well he may have been able to get WMDs". Pick one, it's a constant circle to continually change the defense of our action.

The Democrats would love that. If there were only one reason. But alas, Saddam Hussein gave us plenty of reasons.

[Chubby]

You know it isn't "we can do whatever we want." It is we will do whatever we think we need to. And yes we can thumb our nose at the rest of the world while we do it, because honestly we CAN decide if it needs to be done. I actually trust the government, the congress and the president, whether Republican or Democrat to evaluate and decide when to use millitary force. I count on them to make every effort to protect our interests here and abroad, as well as the citizens of other nations when required. I don't think this kind of thing is done lightly. I believe they take it seriously.

I don't have any trouble with going to war in Iraq. I don't have a problem with the fact that we haven't found more than minor evidence of WMD. I don't have a problem with the fact that our pre-war intelligence was so poor, well at least I don't see any point in blaming anyone for it, I just want that problem fixed. I do have a problem with the fact that the Bush administration hasn't mentioned how this intelligence failure affects the new policy of preemption. I mean I trust that they will be more careful vetting intelligence in the future, but it kind of bothers me that no one has come out and said as much.


Then you support hypocrisy. We can thumb our noses at the rest of the world but other nations can't.

What you described IS "we can do whatever we want". How is that different from "we will do whatever we think we need to"?

[duckman]

I just want to thank Chubby for the boost in my post totals. :D

[Dutch]

You have this proof? By all means, share it with me and I may very well agree with you.

Saddam Hussein ordered no investigation into the 400,000 mass graves in his country that have been found. He ordered no investigation into all the torture chambers either.

That's proof enough for me.

[Tekneek]

I don't have a problem with the fact that our pre-war intelligence was so poor, well at least I don't see any point in blaming anyone for it, I just want that problem fixed.

Ok. The chief executive is not responsible for failures in his branch? It is an interesting thought. I'm sure Ken Lay can't be blamed for what happened with Enron, either, even though it happened on his watch.

[Joe Canadian]

President Bush never used nerve gas on his own people, beat, rape, or tortured people for the sure thrill of it.

You realize that North America (not just the US) has taken advantage of developing countries, and basiclly secured lifetime poverty for millions of people, right? Please don't come out and start harping about how the US, and western countries (Canada included) can't do no wrong... we've done, and still do ALOT of bad things... but it's ok, because we do it in the name of free trade, and capitialism!

[Chubby]

The Democrats would love that. If there were only one reason. But alas, Saddam Hussein gave us plenty of reasons.
The WMDs he didn't have?

The people "he" tortured? (Like we did at the prision)

The thumbing of his nose at the UN?




All reasons we are guilty of as a nation as well.

[Dutch]

Then you support hypocrisy. We can thumb our noses at the rest of the world but other nations can't.

What you described IS "we can do whatever we want". How is that different from "we will do whatever we think we need to"?

Want vs. Need?

[Chubby]

Saddam Hussein ordered no investigation into the 400,000 mass graves in his country that have been found. He ordered no investigation into all the torture chambers either.

That's proof enough for me.

That's not proof he ordered the things in the 1st place.

[Tekneek]

Saddam Hussein ordered no investigation into the 400,000 mass graves in his country that have been found. He ordered no investigation into all the torture chambers either.

That's proof enough for me.

Oh, ok. Is it not important to note that the executive branch of the US government, of which Bush is the head, sat on the torture nonsense until it was leaked out to the press? Only then were people removed from duty.

[Chubby]

Want vs. Need?
It's what we want and screw everyone else.

Yet when other countries do this we invade them...

[Tekneek]

It's what we want and screw everyone else.

Yet when other countries do this we invade them...

Other countries do not have a "God given right" to do as they damn well please. They have a God given obligation to seek our approval before they do anything.

[Dutch]

The US Military Justice Department was investigating and taking action as soon as they found out about it. The people responsable were "relived of duty" before the press knew about it.

[Dutch]

It's what we want and screw everyone else.

Yet when other countries do this we invade them...

What are you talking about, Chubby? Buying oil from Saudi Arabia? That how it's supposed to work!

[duckman]

I just want you to know, Chubby, is that I love you and if you want to, you can fuck my sister.

[Joe Canadian]

The people "he" tortured? (Like we did at the prision)


I'm as anti-Bush as the next guy... but PLEASE don't compare what Sadaam did to what happend at Abu Ghurayb! What the solidiers at that prison did was indeed horrible, and unforgivable IMO... it definitly doesn't compare to what Sadaam has done to his people.

BTW, if the US went into Iraq as a human rights mission I would have been able to swollow the pill alot easier... but they ended up using that reason because all the others they came up with NO ONE believed!!

[Dutch]

I'm as anti-Bush as the next guy... but PLEASE don't compare what Sadaam did to what happend at Abu Ghurayb! What the solidiers at that prison did was indeed horrible, and unforgivable IMO... it definitly doesn't compare to what Sadaam has done to his people.

BTW, if the US went into Iraq as a human rights mission I would have been able to swollow the pill alot easier... but they ended up using that reason because all the others they came up with NO ONE believed!!

The media has programmed us to think Human Rights was never mentioned as a reason, but every single speech leading up to the war included that as an argument. Every single one.

[Chubby]

What are you talking about, Chubby? Buying oil from Saudi Arabia? That how it's supposed to work!

US ignores the UN = good
Iraq ignores the UN = bad

Afghanistan sponsors terorism = bad
Sadui Arabia sponsors terrorism = good

[Chubby]

I just want you to know, Chubby, is that I love you and if you want to, you can fuck my sister.
PIKS PLZ :D

[Tekneek]

The US Military Justice Department was investigating and taking action as soon as they found out about it. The people responsable were "relived of duty" before the press knew about it.

All that I have found was that the General in charge, Karpinski, was relieved of duty before the investigation...not anyone below her. Perhaps I missed those reports. Still, the investigation order did not come from Bush, although you expect Saddam to have issued such orders. In fact, after it went public Bush claimed to have not known anything about it at all, despite a General being suspended before the investigation started.

[Tekneek]

What are you talking about, Chubby? Buying oil from Saudi Arabia? That how it's supposed to work!

The bulk of terrorist financing comes from Saudi Arabia. Despite that, we remain on friendly terms. We should be insisting that they stop all flow of financing to any terrorist groups or we'll invade and put a stop to it ourselves...if we actually want to take a consistent position on the issue. Are we just supposed to sit back and let Saudi citizens finance the next 9/11 and do nothing? After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi.

[Chubby]

The bulk of terrorist financing comes from Saudi Arabia. Despite that, we remain on friendly terms. We should be insisting that they stop all flow of financing to any terrorist groups or we'll invade and put a stop to it ourselves...if we actually want to take a consistent position on the issue. Are we just supposed to sit back and let Saudi citizens finance the next 9/11 and do nothing? After all, 165 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi.

Remeber, we don't "need" to do anything about the Saudis because they are our buddies. Of course, if they didn't have that oil we'd "need" to do something supposedly.

[dawgfan]

Lets see! Iraq first attacked Iran in hopes of annexing the country, but failed, then annexed Kuwait.

So if Iraq was comparable to Nazi Germany, and one of the reasons for this comparison was the war they had with Iran, does that make the U.S. Nazi-sympathizers since we were supplying Iraq with weapons to fight Iran?

Later, they began to build up troops for an invasion of Saudi Arabia before the US stepped in during the Gulf War.

I don't recall this at all - do you have some facts to back up this assertion? Obviously Saudi Arabia found Iraq to be a threat since they were a key component of the original Gulf War coalition and allowed U.S. military bases (which in turn caused Osama to direct his hatred toward the U.S. for "desecrating" the holy land), but I don't recall that Iraq was building up for an invasion of Saudi Arabia.

[dawgfan]

That didn't happen and now we are finding out that not only did we not have definitive information but the CIA ignored conflicting information about the WMDs and also ignored other American intelligence agencies that came to different conclusions about the WMDs. I don't mind going vigilante on someone's ass when necessary, but before we do I'd like to have some concrete information and not conflicting information and differing opinions inside our own government.

Very well put.

[duckman]

I'd hit it.

[Glengoyne]

...
I don't recall this at all - do you have some facts to back up this assertion? Obviously Saudi Arabia found Iraq to be a threat since they were a key component of the original Gulf War coalition and allowed U.S. military bases (which in turn caused Osama to direct his hatred toward the U.S. for "desecrating" the holy land), but I don't recall that Iraq was building up for an invasion of Saudi Arabia.
Pretty sure the Iraqis moved troops to the Iraq/Saudi border before the U.S. started Operation Desert Shield.

[Tekneek]

Pretty sure the Iraqis moved troops to the Iraq/Saudi border before the U.S. started Operation Desert Shield.

This has been a point of contention for a long time. I recall it being reported that the US government stated that, but there was some dispute amongst the allies regarding its authenticity. It was believed to have been a key point in getting Saudi Arabia to sign on.

If Saddam really had all his troops lined up at the border, is there a reason they were so easily encircled?

[Dutch]

The bulk of terrorist financing comes from Saudi Arabia. Despite that, we remain on friendly terms. We should be insisting that they stop all flow of financing to any terrorist groups or we'll invade and put a stop to it ourselves...if we actually want to take a consistent position on the issue. Are we just supposed to sit back and let Saudi citizens finance the next 9/11 and do nothing? After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi.

The War on Terror is a systematic dismantling of the way the Middle East does business. Piece by piece. Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of terrorism because it's where the majority of the fundamentalists would live. And they will need reform as well. But what you are suggesting is that we attack on all fronts with everything we have, right now. That's crazy.

[ice4277]

I think maybe what he was trying to say is that we possibly did not go after the right Middle Eastern country.

[Dutch]

I don't think anybody would agree with that.

[gstelmack]

All that I have found was that the General in charge, Karpinski, was relieved of duty before the investigation...not anyone below her. Perhaps I missed those reports. Still, the investigation order did not come from Bush, although you expect Saddam to have issued such orders. In fact, after it went public Bush claimed to have not known anything about it at all, despite a General being suspended before the investigation started.
We had this discussion a while back, and even the CNN news articles admitted that the investigation into abuses at the prison started back in January, LONG before the media got hold of the pictures everyone has seen.

[Glengoyne]

I think maybe what he was trying to say is that we possibly did not go after the right Middle Eastern country.
Saudi Arabia would be well down the list of middle eastern countries that needed to be dealt with. Iran, Syria.

[clintl]

Saudi Arabia would be well down the list of middle eastern countries that needed to be dealt with. Iran, Syria.

Personally, I think Iran is one of the last countries we should consider taking military action against. There is a real opportunity there that does not exist in most of the Middle East to encourage a native democracy movement that could evolve into a model for the region. And the young people in this democracy movement seem to be fairly pro-Western. Certainly, as long as the ayatollahs are the real power there, Iran is going to be a trouble spot. But a real possibility exists that the problems can be resolved internally, and we would be far better off if this democracy movement succeeded without external intervention (i.e. the Iranian people established a democracy themselves on their own terms). I think we are blowing it by not making some moves to reconcile with Iran.

[Tekneek]

Saudi Arabia would be well down the list of middle eastern countries that needed to be dealt with. Iran, Syria.

Despite the fact that more Saudis have carried out terrorist attacks on US soil than any other nationality?

[Tekneek]

I think we are blowing it by not making some moves to reconcile with Iran.

Instead of calling out their fundamentalists with the "axis of terror" rhetoric, they should be encouraging the change that is already happening within their own nation. We've been more anxious to "normalize" trade and relations with somebody like China, who gives their population far less in the way of rights and self-determination. Iran is at a point where they could go in a very good direction, but our government would rather rally the old school hardliners there. Go figure... So much for the idea that we back democracy, eh? We'd rather do business with a communist nation.

[Tekneek]

We had this discussion a while back, and even the CNN news articles admitted that the investigation into abuses at the prison started back in January, LONG before the media got hold of the pictures everyone has seen.

I know. I stated as much myself. You said the people responsible were relieved of duty, but I have only found mention that the General was relieved of duty. You then stated that the CNN article said what I already said. How does an investigation beginning prove that anyone other than the General were relieved of duty?

[Dutch]

Instead of calling out their fundamentalists with the "axis of terror" rhetoric...

Can it be called "rhetoric" when the Bush admin used it once in a speech and the media continually slams him for it for years afterward to keep the name fresh in everybody's minds?

Also, can our countries attempts at diplomacy be belittled any more by our own press corp?