06-17-2005, 09:01 AM | #151 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Your description is entirely a strawman - no one is arguing that. My account differs slightly from others, but this is what I believe: Bush wanted to finish the job in Iraq that his Dad didn't because he say tremendous opportunities to squeeze the Middle East oil suppliers if we had a non-OPEC ally there. That would be the first step to a U.S.-friendly Middle East. This was a goal from day one of this administration because it is essentially the neo-con plan as has been spelled out in various publications at the time. 9/11 comes a long and provides a perfect excuse. Bush and the administration order intelligence agencies to accumulate data favorable to their cause and they then cherry pick the info further. THIS IS INCREDIBLY EASY TO DO. No conspiracy is required. Go read just the public foreign policy journals pre-9/11 and you can find outliers who believe all sorts of theories. However, at the time, most academics and policy groups did not believe Saddam presented ANY IMMEDIATE THREAT. Only the fringe really believed otherwise. In fact, most of the Iraq literature was focused on the effect sanctions were having on the population and there was a growing consensus that sanctions should actually be lifted. On that fringe, however, the administration built its case and the rest is history. Now, why is that so hard to believe?
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-17-2005, 09:13 AM | #152 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Arles: Without getting myself completely back in this.
1) We relied almost exclusively on a source that had been discredited by State and the CIA during Clinton. When Bush came in CHalabi and Curveball suddenly were seen as always right and their allegations were never corroborated or challenged. 2) Rumsfeld and Cheney created the Office of Special Plans. The sole purpose of the OSP was to reinterpret intelligence about Iraq because the CIA and State were not being aggressive enough intheir interpretations. 3) You have to separate chem/bio weapons from nuclear weapons if you want to be honest. The WMD threat that everyone believed was from chem/bio. The nuclear case that the Admin sold went way past the evidence and there are at least two examples where the admin did disregard warnings that wat they were saying wasn't proven. (Aluminum tubes, yellowcake) 4) Statements such as Card's "from a marketing viewpoint, you don't introduce a new product in August." or Wolfowitz's that WMD was settled on to sell the war. 5) Statements that went well beyond any evidence that any Clinton or Bush official such as Rumsfeld saying he knew exactly where the WMD were. 6) The clear fact that we made no effort to guard any WMD facilities. And remember, Rumsfeld said we knew exactly where they were. Did the admin fabricate everything, of course not. Did they stretch the truth and do everything in their power to sell this war to the public, of course. For me the real problem here is that the policy drove the facts. We were going to go to war no matter what and the job of the facts was to help sell the policy. I don't believe for a second that anything collected after 9/1 mattered. The decision was already made. I'll also be clear that I don't think there will ever be a smoking gun on intelligence, but the real issue of the DSM is that Bush & Co. repeatedly lied to Congress and to the public when they said they were reluctant to go to war or that war was the last option. |
06-17-2005, 10:08 AM | #153 | |||||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
06-17-2005, 10:19 AM | #154 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
..but then I start to question the obvious lies, which we already went around about (Cheney's statement during the debate, etc.)
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 10:23 AM | #155 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
Yes, but that's not what we were told. I could have supported this war, but instead of telling us the truth the admin decided to punch it up and make it more appealing. They decided to tell us that they were reluctant to go to war when they clearly were not. And the refusal of the admin to level with us continues as Cheney reaches up his ass and pulls out "the insurgency is in its last throes." I believe that this failure to lay out the complete truth is what is eroding support for finishing the job. We keep being told that things are wonderful, but they clearly are not. At what point do supporters of Bush decide that solving the problem in Iraq is more important than supporting Bush? |
|
06-17-2005, 11:22 AM | #156 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
This is something I had not seen posited anywhere til this thread the last few days, that Bush had Iraq in his sites back in 2000. I thought the CW was that Bush was essentially an isolationist, unwilling to risk american soldiers for anything at all. Then 9/11 happened, and Wolfowitz et al. gained in influence, and Powell declined.
I seriously had not seen the argument anywhere that Bush wanted to invade Iraq pre-9/11. I think had there been a bloodless way to take out Hussein, he would have taken it, but heck, so would Howard Dean or even Ralph Nader. |
06-17-2005, 11:32 AM | #157 |
High School JV
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Massachusetts
|
I've stayed out of this, the Clark(e)s, Gen. Wesley and Richard have both talked about the pre 9-11 days of the Bush Administration when they were taking assets (spy planes, predators, etc.) and intelligence out of Afghanistan and putting them into Iraq. That's pretty much never been denied and is talked about in the "Bush at War" lovefest that Woodward wrote.
I don't think there is any doubt that the Bush Admin thought Iraq and Hussein were the biggest threat. |
06-17-2005, 11:45 AM | #158 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Thinking that Iraq and Hussein were a (big) threat is completely appropriate and unsurprising. That's not what I'm protesting, though - I'm disputing the notion that Bush was itching for a fight with Iraq from day 1 of his administration.
|
06-17-2005, 11:56 AM | #159 | |
High School JV
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
I think it is very possible to quibble with thinking that Iraq/Hussein were a bigger threat than bin Laden/al Qaeda. That certainly wasn't the thinking in the academic or intelligence community. |
|
06-17-2005, 12:05 PM | #160 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
St. Cronin: There are a number of points that show Bush was merely aiting for the right time to attack Iraq.
1) Paul O'Neill has said that Iraq was a priority in early 2001 2) Wolfowitz, Pearl and I believe Rumsfeld all pushed for attacking Iraq while Clinton was in office 3) Bush clearly and repeatedly stated that regime change was the policy of the administration 4) On 9/11 accounts have the President and others pushing for an attack against Iraq Let me be clear that I believe there was a good case to go to war in Iraq and that for me those facts didn't change much with 9/11. I'm mostly fine with the decision, but I still think it was wrong to tell the public that there was reluctance to go to war when there clearly was not. |
06-17-2005, 12:12 PM | #161 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Ok, I don't disagree with all that but I think what is being argued here is that without 9/11 Bush would have eventually invaded Iraq for some other reason. I don't think that is true, and it is an argument I had not heard before.
|
06-17-2005, 12:19 PM | #162 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Whether he could have gotten support for it is debatable, but given that many of the main DOD players were arguing for invasion during the 90s I don't think there is much doubt that the desire was there.
|
06-17-2005, 12:22 PM | #163 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
06-17-2005, 12:30 PM | #164 | ||||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...ast/libera.htm Quote:
Last edited by Arles : 06-17-2005 at 12:34 PM. |
||||
06-17-2005, 12:44 PM | #165 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Arles: I won't argue with any of that except the last point. All I was trying to point out was that using military means to oust Saddam was not something that suddenly popped up in 2002. I don't think that can even be dabeted.
As to your last point, no. Iraq was most certainly not where Bush should have initially looked. Al Queada was a known threat, they had previously attacked the WTC, we had credible intelligence that they were gearing for another attack, all of the career guys were saying its Al Quaeda, and every credible analysis said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queada. |
06-17-2005, 01:17 PM | #166 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, as we got more info, Al-Qaeda started to take front and center. But, on 9/11, it certainly made a lot fo sense for many to assume Saddam was behind this. |
||
06-17-2005, 01:23 PM | #167 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Arles: No offence, but I would hope that the White House and associated government employees were a little bit more informed than you. All of the signs pointed to Al Queada.
It may have made sense for you to think it was Iraq, but it is inconcievable that given the information and advice the White House recieved that they could have seen Iraq as the most likely culprit. |
06-17-2005, 01:28 PM | #168 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Why did we go to war? Here is the resolution of the US Congress:
Quote:
Pretty much the only reason that is still valid is: Quote:
I'm not so sure that that is enough to fight a war over. Arles would have you believe that it is all just a big misunderstanding, that the head of MI6 saw that the intelligence was being fixed but didn't tell Bush, that the British knew more about our own intelligence than we did. That doesn't seem right to me, either. So why did we go to war? Everyone has their own pet theories, which shows what a big problem it is. It's stupid that we have to ask that question. |
||
06-17-2005, 01:28 PM | #169 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
...especially considering that this is the SECOND time Al Qaeda hit. What was their first target? I can't seem to remember.
edit: Forgot to mention that they also hit a floating thing in the mideast too. Damn they are mean folks, we should probably capture that tall one of them.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 06-17-2005 at 01:32 PM. |
06-17-2005, 01:30 PM | #170 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
I think it depends on the timeframe. If it was the day of 9/11 or the next few days (before the White House assembled all the info) then I could see Bush and others being concerned about Saddam - that's all I was saying. There have been many references to Bush talking about Saddam on the day of and after the attack and my contention is that is perfectly reasonable. Now, if he was more worried about Saddam a month after 9/11 - then that would be different. But their actions (and most accounts) show that Al Qaeda was the main focus by then.
|
06-17-2005, 01:33 PM | #171 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
It puzzles me that Bush has been a disastrous leader in terms of domestic policy, and a brilliant leader in terms of his foreign policy, yet all the opposition party talks about is 'Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.'
|
06-17-2005, 01:34 PM | #172 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
I think Brutal repression and executions and mass killings IS enough to go to war over if we have the power to put an end to it....we should at least try.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 01:34 PM | #173 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
this month, for a long time it was jobs....it changes.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 01:36 PM | #174 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Arles: This isn't going to get us anywhere. If the accounts of Bush pushing for an attack on Iraq on 9/11 are true than something is seriously fucked up. We had reports of Al Queada planning a major attack, Al Queada had previously attacked the WTC, the suicide bombing was a hallmark of Al Queada and had never been used by Saddam, all of the career officials were saying this is Al Queada, our allies were saying this is Al Queada, Bush had been warned that Al Queada was our major threat, there was no intelligence intercepts or movements in Iraq that remotely suggested involvment by Saddam.
No. There is no way that Bush should have pointed to Iraq by the time he met with the national security folks. |
06-17-2005, 01:37 PM | #175 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
Not really ... granted, living in Madison can be a little disorienting, but I can't remember the last time the local paper went two days in a row without some story on Iraq getting significant, if not front page, coverage. The criticism of Bush on other matters has been extremely muted. |
|
06-17-2005, 01:42 PM | #176 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-17-2005, 01:42 PM | #177 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Its a war...probably deserves to be in a the paper a lot. I'd think.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 01:43 PM | #178 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Well thats enough for me, if there is genocide, than yup we (and the UN w/ NATO) should be there by the end of the week. World's police.....Us Jewish folk thank you.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 01:44 PM | #179 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-17-2005, 01:47 PM | #180 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
But if genocide is why we went to war, why are we not doing anything about Sudan? I understand if genocide is enough for YOU to go to war, but I am wondering why WE went to war. What was the goal of the administration? |
|
06-17-2005, 01:49 PM | #181 | |
High School JV
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Massachusetts
|
Quote:
And then, when leaving office, Clinton, his NSA, and numerous other people met with the incoming administration to let them know that they felt bin Laden would be their biggest problem. http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101703A.shtml |
|
06-17-2005, 01:52 PM | #182 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
he gassed the Kurds because they were Kurdish. He cracked down on the Shi-ites because they we're Shi-ites when Bush I pulled back. That's Genocide in my book, see ya. Sudan...well, we should be going there too. Hi, Im Flasch186. Have we met?
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 02:15 PM | #183 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
I really think that dealing with Iraq was high on the Admin's agenda from day one, or actually before day one. He campaigned on regime change in Iraq. I don't believe that the invasion of Iraq is at all tied to the events of 9/11. I view them as wholly separate issues. I do believe that in the wake of 9/11 terrorism was a huge issue, and the Admin did use the spectre of a rogue state potentially cooperating with terrorists as part of their case for war. It wasn't so much that the admin was saying that they, Iraq and terrorists, were "proven allies", but more of a case of a potential "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation arising. I don't think that anyone can definitively state that the Bush administration felt that Iraq was a bigger threat than Islamic Terroists. I just don't believe there is evidence to support such a claim. I do believe the fact that we chose to invade Iraq, when we hadn't finished cleaning up the situation in Afghanistan, shows that regime change in Iraq was too high of a priority in the Whitehouse. I just don't think you can definitively declare that the priority was attributed to any "threat" factor. |
|
06-17-2005, 02:19 PM | #184 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-17-2005, 03:02 PM | #185 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Clinton's words two years after 9/11 may say Usama was his main concern, but his actions point much more directly to Iraq - that is unless he also stated somewhere he wanted regime change in Afghanistan or spoke on national TV about missions to eliminate Al Qaeda. I guess I missed both of those actions by Clinton. |
|
06-17-2005, 03:11 PM | #186 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Yes, if a leader commits Genocide I dont believe the statute of limitations runs out. Im for the war, glad he's gone, but my skin is rubbed raw because I feel the admin. lied to me.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
06-17-2005, 05:15 PM | #187 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
But they didn't. |
|
06-17-2005, 05:17 PM | #188 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
To be fair, Clinton bombed an abandoned camp in Afghanistan and a Pharmacy in Africa in the name of ridding the world of Bin Laden. |
|
06-17-2005, 05:25 PM | #189 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
i know Im glad we got him out of there...I just wish that W wouldve spoke honestly about why we were going.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 05:26 PM | #190 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
...and did his very best to stop Genocide in Bosnia with Worldwide support.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 05:32 PM | #191 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
But wouldn't help Rwanda without world-wide support. |
|
06-17-2005, 06:55 PM | #192 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
My Wife asked in the minutes after we learned the news "Who would do this?". I answered "Osama Bin Laden and AlZawahiri(sp?)" I was pretty sure, and I'm damn sure that everyone who was anyone in Washington Intelligence had a pretty good idea who it was. I think the president knew it was almost a certainty that AlQaeda was behind the attack. I think too much is being made about his request in the day/days following to see if Iraq had played any sort of a role in the attack. It makes a little bit of sense to actually verify which enemy attacked you. So I think it is really a bit of a reach to say that Bush had a legitimate reason to believe that it was Iraq instead of AlQaeda who was behind the attacks. AlQaeda was absolutely the leading suspect, I just don't think it was all that big of a deal to want to confirm that it wasn't Public Enemy #2 or #3. |
|
06-17-2005, 06:56 PM | #193 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
Don't forget his abandonment of Somalia. |
|
06-17-2005, 06:58 PM | #194 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
This I agree with too. W may have championed WMD as the big reason to go to war, but the other reasons were touted as well. MrGiggles post showing the resolution for war lists plenty of valid reasons to remove Saddam from power. |
|
06-17-2005, 10:16 PM | #195 |
College Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle
|
Now, I do give up. Arles is truly in denial. It's become clear that he accepts all favorable evidence as true, and casts aside all unfavorable evidence as false or speculation. The best point made here is that if the Brits THOUGHT info fixing or massaging was going on, the Administration KNEW it was going on. Again, I learned to smell a rat a long time ago. Arles is operating in the realm of "plausible deniability," which keeps you of jail, but doesn't stop people from figuring out what really happened. Arles, I am not going to engage you in the task you have asked us to do which is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the fix was in. Won't do it. Can't do. Don't have to do it.
|
06-17-2005, 10:48 PM | #196 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
....and Im not in favor of that either. This isnt a pro-clinton thread for me its a thread for me to say, "that YES Im glad saddam is gone but PLEASE dont lie to me to get me there. Be honest with me and Ill most likely support you if you're doing what's right." Im very consistent....ALL places where genocide occurs are subject to having the most powerful nations in the world, with righteousness on their side (and I do mean righteousness when it comes to stopping Genocide), come into your country and do whatever is necessary to save lives, generations, and a people. Period. For me, thats enough.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-17-2005, 10:52 PM | #197 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Bush didn't lie. |
|
06-18-2005, 02:00 AM | #198 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
06-18-2005, 02:37 AM | #199 | |||||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is no doubt that it was a questionable case for the WMD's. At the time, the biggest pieces of intelligence used to indict Iraq by the administration were the Niger documents, the aluminum tubes, and the appropriately named Curveball. We know now that there were serious misgivings about each of those sources at the time they were being fed to us. The response from the Bush apologists is that, "We didn't hear about that back then, so it can't be true." Well, no kidding, that is what fixing the intelligence is all about. It's about not reporting what doesn't fit into what you are trying to sell. It's a catch-22. |
|||||
06-18-2005, 09:19 AM | #200 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
MrBigglesworth,
The most basic defination of interpreting information says they did not lie about any of it. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|