PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida


dirk digler
03-10-2008, 10:05 PM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html

By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008


<!-- story_image.comp --> <!-- /story_image.comp --> WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

<!-- story_videobox.comp --> <!-- /story_videobox.comp --> The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy.
However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

<!-- story_factbox.comp --> <!-- /story_factbox.comp --> He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.
President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.

The new study, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review.

It was produced by a federally-funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Spokesmen for the Joint Forces Command declined to comment until the report is released. One of the report's authors, Kevin Woods, also declined to comment.

The issue of al Qaida in Iraq already has played a role in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, recently for saying that he'd keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.

"I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq," McCain told supporters. Obama retorted that, "There was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade." (In fact, al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion.)

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.
While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.

However, the U.S. intelligence official, who's read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, "I don't think there's any surprises there."

Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.

According to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism for 2002 — the last before the Iraq invasion — Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a radical, Syrian-based terrorist group.

Saddam also hosted Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, although the Abu Nidal Organization was more active when he lived in Libya and he was murdered in Baghdad in August 2002, possibly on Saddam's orders.

An earlier study based on the captured Iraqi documents, released by the Joint Forces Command in March 2006, found that a militia Saddam formed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the Fedayeen Saddam, planned assassinations and bombings against his enemies. Those included Iraqi exiles and opponents in Iraq's Kurdish and Shiite communities.

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq. What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown, however, according to the earlier study.

The new Pentagon study isn't the first to refute earlier administration contentions about Saddam and al Qaida.

A September 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam was "distrustful of al Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaida to provide material or operational support."

The Senate report, citing an FBI debriefing of a senior Iraqi spy, Faruq Hijazi, said that Saddam turned down a request for assistance by bin Laden which he made at a 1995 meeting in Sudan with an Iraqi operative.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-10-2008, 10:16 PM
Paging Radar Chief.

dirk digler
03-10-2008, 10:24 PM
Paging Radar Chief.

I definitely bet there will be alot of spinning going down on this topic but you can't get any more definite than the Pentagon denying there was any involvement.

BucEyedPea
03-10-2008, 10:27 PM
RadarCon's weiner just exploded!

dirk digler
03-10-2008, 10:27 PM
Heh

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had “long-established ties” with al-Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al-Qaida.
“He was a patron of terrorism,” Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. “He had long established ties with al-Qaida.”

jAZ
03-10-2008, 10:35 PM
But, but but... he said "long established"... he didn't lie though! He never said "well established!"

a1na2
03-11-2008, 05:13 AM
I definitely bet there will be alot of spinning going down on this topic but you can't get any more definite than the Pentagon denying there was any involvement.

Admiral Digler, did you dig those out yourself?

patteeu
03-11-2008, 07:12 AM
I definitely bet there will be alot of spinning going down on this topic but you can't get any more definite than the Pentagon denying there was any involvement.

You could be a little more sophisticated in your understanding though. It's this kind of crude misinterpretation that led people to believe they were lied into war. IMO, you have only yourselves to blame.

The spinning started with your thread title. Contrary to that title, there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda (and those links were long-established as the VP said). This report just confirms what the Senate Intel report said about there being no operational links. In other words, they weren't cooperating on operations together, but that doesn't refute the previous findings that discussions were held and overtures were made.

Saddam had just suffered a humiliating defeat in GW I, he'd already tried to assassinate a US President, he was an international pariah as a result of US activism against him, and he was an avowed enemy of the US. Knowing that Saddam's regime was in contact with al Qaeda, and knowing that al Qaeda had just pulled off the biggest attack on our mainland since at least Pearl Harbor, would you have some concern that the link between Saddam and al Qaeda was more than just playing footsie and exchanging recipes for camelburgers? It seems like a natural concern to me. Add to that the report from the Czechs that one of the 9/11 hijackers was seen talking to a known Iraqi agent in a Prague airport and you've got to be braindead not to wonder about an operational connection.

But in light of all this, even though the administration openly discussed the possibility of a connection between Saddam and the 9/11 plot, they never claimed that they had proof and, in fact, explicitly said that they did not have proof. The administration has been clean on this throughout the process.

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 07:26 AM
You could be a little more sophisticated in your understanding though. It's this kind of crude misinterpretation that led people to believe they were lied into war. IMO, you have only yourselves to blame.

The spinning started with your thread title. Contrary to that title, there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda. This report just confirms what the Senate Intel report said about there being no operational links. In other words, they weren't cooperating on operations together, but that doesn't refute the previous findings that discussions were held and overtures were made.

But in light of all this, even though the administration openly discussed the possibility of a connection between Saddam and the 9/11 plot, they never claimed that they had proof and, in fact, explicitly said that they did not have proof.

I disagree because if you look at the quotes by Rumsfeld he says they have "bulletproof" evidence that AQ and Saddam were working together. I am curious if this was the same "bulletproof" evidence for WMD? :Poke:

The thread title is the name of the article except I added Pentagon because well the Pentagon is the one who is sponsoring this document.

Obviously we are going to have to wait until the report comes out but it appears at least from the article there were overtures made but Saddam refused them and "the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links".

Just remember this is the Pentagon that is releasing this document not some crack-pot organization.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 08:16 AM
I disagree because if you look at the quotes by Rumsfeld he says they have "bulletproof" evidence that AQ and Saddam were working together. I am curious if this was the same "bulletproof" evidence for WMD? :Poke:

The thread title is the name of the article except I added Pentagon because well the Pentagon is the one who is sponsoring this document.

Obviously we are going to have to wait until the report comes out but it appears at least from the article there were overtures made but Saddam refused them and "the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links".

Just remember this is the Pentagon that is releasing this document not some crack-pot organization.

The crack-pot organization is apparently McClatchy if they are responsible for the misleading title. But you have to share the blame because you've posted it as though it contradicts the administration's position and you continue to do so, despite having it explained to you on numerous occasions.

You need to check out what it is that Rumsfeld really said in his "bulletproof" quote. McClatchy got this wrong too. I couldn't find a transcript of the actual statement by Rumsfeld, but Ray McGovern, a critic of the administration, quotes him as saying "There is bulletproof evidence of links between al-Qaida and the government of Saddam Hussein." As far as I've seen, that is true and this report doesn't challenge that. He didn't say, as McClatchy's Strobel tries to suggest, that there was bulletproof evidence "of cooperation". You might ask yourself why this Strobel guy didn't provide a direct quote of Rumsfeld instead of changing his words. Maybe it was innocent incompetence, but then again, maybe it was plain dishonesty. Try to be a bit skeptical at least.

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 08:36 AM
The crack-pot organization is apparently McClatchy if they are responsible for the misleading title. But you have to share the blame because you've posted it as though it contradicts the administration's position and you continue to do so, despite having it explained to you on numerous occasions.

You need to check out what it is that Rumsfeld really said in his "bulletproof" quote. McClatchy got this wrong too. I couldn't find a transcript of the actual statement by Rumsfeld, but Ray McGovern, a critic of the administration, quotes him as saying "There is bulletproof evidence of links between al-Qaida and the government of Saddam Hussein." As far as I've seen, that is true and this report doesn't challenge that. He didn't say, as McClatchy's Strobel tries to suggest, that there was bulletproof evidence "of cooperation". You might ask yourself why this Strobel guy didn't provide a direct quote of Rumsfeld instead of changing his words. Maybe it was innocent incompetence, but then again, maybe it was plain dishonesty. Try to be a bit skeptical at least.

All I did was post the title of the article and added Pentagon what is the problem? The Pentagon is the one that is sponsoring this report so the title is correct.

As far as the rest goes it is obvious now just like their were no WMD's there was no operational link between AQ and Saddam yet this administration at least in the past tried to say there was.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/

Rumsfeld: Al Qaeda comments 'misunderstood'


"Why the intelligence proved wrong (on WMDs), I'm not in a position to say," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "I simply don't know."


When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Rumsfeld's restated position mirrors what Vice President Dick Cheney had said as recently as June.

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report." "It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."
Suggesting that the 9/11 commission had reached a contradictory conclusion was "irresponsible," he said.

Before the war, in a speech in Atlanta in September 2002, Rumsfeld said he the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are in fact al Qaeda in Iraq."

In Monday's address, Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations that U.S. intelligence analysts have changed their assessment: "I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way."

The 9/11 commission report, issued in July, concluded there may have been meetings between Iraqi officials and Osama bin Laden or his aides in 1999 but there was "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

Nor did the commission find any evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States," the commission report said.

In June, President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.
"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

But Rumsfeld Monday in his address to the CFR questioned whether al-Zarqawi is working with al Qaeda even as he seemed to have a similar agenda.

"In the case of al Qaeda, my impression is most of the senior people have actually sworn an oath to Osama bin Laden, and to my knowledge, even as of this late date, I don't believe Zarqawi, the principal leader of the network in Iraq, has sworn an oath, even though what they're doing -- I mean, they're just two peas in a pod in terms of what they're doing," Rumsfeld said.

On the question of whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld dropped his common assertion that weapons "may yet be found," instead saying the world is "a lot better off" without Saddam Hussein.
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. And does everyone know he had them at one point? Certainly. Does everyone believe -- even those in the U.N. who voted the other way -- acknowledge the fact that he had filed a fraudulent declaration with the United Nations?" Rumsfeld said.

"And why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say. I simply don't know. But the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail than they were with him in power."

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:08 AM
Paging Radar Chief.

9-11 Commission reported the exact same thing, no collaborative links, but then went on to describe several communicative links.
Sounds like this report is a rehashing of the exact same thing. :shrug:

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:09 AM
RadarCon's weiner just exploded!

The NeoCon Demagogue's concern for my “weiner” is disturbing to say the least. :spock:

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:18 AM
All I did was post the title of the article and added Pentagon what is the problem? The Pentagon is the one that is sponsoring this report so the title is correct.

As far as the rest goes it is obvious now just like their were no WMD's there was no operational link between AQ and Saddam yet this administration at least in the past tried to say there was.

For Pete's sake, Dirk, what is so difficult to understand here. The title is incorrect regardless of who is sponsoring the report, but the truth is that the title has nothing to do with what the Pentagon has said and everything to do with the incompetence or dishonesty of the guy from McClatchy who wrote it. And again, you share the blame for uncritically spreading the disinformation.

There *were* links/ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and whoever else might have said that there were these links/ties have not been undermined by this report or by any other report. What this report is saying is that there weren't operational ties/links between the two.

The administration at one time suspected and speculated about the possibility of operational links/ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, but as I've already pointed out, they never claimed to have proof and they explicitly admitted that they didn't have proof.

The article you post is a great example of this. Rumsfeld initially explains that he hasn't seen hard evidence of a link between the two (which is an imprecise way of saying he didn't know of an operational connection), but later when the media latches on to this as an admission that there was no evidence of any links/ties whatsoever, he clarifies and says that to the contrary there is an abundance of evidence of links/ties (even though there wasn't proof of the link/tie between Saddam and 9/11 or the operational links/ties between Saddam and al Qaeda).

I can understand some initial confusion on this subject, but after all this time and after repeated explanations, I can't understand your continuing confusion.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:20 AM
Hey Pat, isn’t this exactly what we’ve been saying all along?

The 9/11 commission report, issued in July, concluded there may have been meetings between Iraqi officials and Osama bin Laden or his aides in 1999 but there was "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

Nor did the commission find any evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States," the commission report said.

In June, President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network.
"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

:shrug: How is this new news?
Answer: it isn't. It’s the exact same information people have been trying to take out of context to reach the predetermined conclusion that they were “lied to”. :shake:

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:38 AM
Hey Pat, isn’t this exactly what we’ve been saying all along?



:shrug: How is this new news?
Answer: it isn't. It’s the exact same information people have been trying to take out of context to reach the predetermined conclusion that they were “lied to”. :shake:

I couldn't agree more.

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 09:47 AM
For Pete's sake, Dirk, what is so difficult to understand here. The title is incorrect regardless of who is sponsoring the report, but the truth is that the title has nothing to do with what the Pentagon has said and everything to do with the incompetence or dishonesty of the guy from McClatchy who wrote it. And again, you share the blame for uncritically spreading the disinformation.

There *were* links/ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and whoever else might have said that there were these links/ties have not been undermined by this report or by any other report. What this report is saying is that there weren't operational ties/links between the two.

The administration at one time suspected and speculated about the possibility of operational links/ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, but as I've already pointed out, they never claimed to have proof and they explicitly admitted that they didn't have proof.

The article you post is a great example of this. Rumsfeld initially explains that he hasn't seen hard evidence of a link between the two (which is an imprecise way of saying he didn't know of an operational connection), but later when the media latches on to this as an admission that there was no evidence of any links/ties whatsoever, he clarifies and says that to the contrary there is an abundance of evidence of links/ties (even though there wasn't proof of the link/tie between Saddam and 9/11 or the operational links/ties between Saddam and al Qaeda).

I can understand some initial confusion on this subject, but after all this time and after repeated explanations, I can't understand your continuing confusion.

Arguing over the title is stupid and I am sure they left out operational because it would make the title extremely long but the point of the article is that the Pentagon is now confirming no operational links or any other kind of link EVER existed between Iraq and AQ.

A link suggests that there is an association or a relationship and with everything that came out there is no evidence that suggests that.

Now there definitely was communication and overtures but the evidence points to Saddam dismissing those because he didn't trust AQ and viewed them as a threat.

As far as being confused I am not at all confused I just hope this report puts to bed the notion that Cheney and others suggested that AQ and Iraq were working together.

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 09:57 AM
Hey Pat, isn’t this exactly what we’ve been saying all along?



:shrug: How is this new news?
Answer: it isn't. It’s the exact same information people have been trying to take out of context to reach the predetermined conclusion that they were “lied to”. :shake:

Only speaking for myself I don't believe I was lied to but I think there was some misleading statements put out by this administration prior to going into Iraq that have now been debunked or proven false that if known by the American public at the time they would have never supported the Iraq war.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:18 AM
Arguing over the title is stupid and I am sure they left out operational because it would make the title extremely long but the point of the article is that the Pentagon is now confirming no operational links or any other kind of link EVER existed between Iraq and AQ.

A link suggests that there is an association or a relationship and with everything that came out there is no evidence that suggests that.

Wrong. There is nothing in your article that supports the speculation that the Pentagon report does anything but confirm a lack of operational links. Your desire to take things further is unjustified.

Now there definitely was communication and overtures but the evidence points to Saddam dismissing those because he didn't trust AQ and viewed them as a threat.

As far as being confused I am not at all confused I just hope this report puts to bed the notion that Cheney and others suggested that AQ and Iraq were working together.

It's not clear that the failure to take the links to an operational level was all one way (Saddam refusing overtures from al Qaeda). In fact, my understanding is that there were overtures made in both directions but that none of them materialized into a cooperative agreement. (See below)

You are trying to apply your own semantic template over the words of the administration and conclude that they were lying based on your choice of definitions instead of accepting the clear distinctions that they made. That's the same kind of dishonesty or incompetence exhibited by the OP article.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. - 9/11 Commission Report, pg 66

Taco John
03-11-2008, 10:32 AM
I have links to Kevin Bacon.

mlyonsd
03-11-2008, 10:34 AM
Wrong. There is nothing in your article that supports the speculation that the Pentagon report does anything but confirm a lack of operational links. Your desire to take things further is unjustified.



It's not clear that the failure to take the links to an operational level was all one way (Saddam refusing overtures from al Qaeda). In fact, my understanding is that there were overtures made in both directions but that none of them materialized into a cooperative agreement. (See below)

You are trying to apply your own semantic template over the words of the administration and conclude that they were lying based on your choice of definitions instead of accepting the clear distinctions that they made. That's the same kind of dishonesty or incompetence exhibited by the OP article.

If I put my "neocon" hat on I can safely say some of us realized that even if there were no definite links between the two, after 911 the possibility of what could happen if Iraq truly had or sought WMD, coupled with Saddam's track record and the probabilty the Iraq sanctions were falling apart could lead to another possible disaster.

None of that has changed with any of these reports. Several different levels might have gotten the intelligience wrong but the fact remains the world is a better place with Saddam gone. Especially if you factor in what could still have happened if he remained in power.

I guess these op-eds that hash out this stuff we've already been over are just for the current political season.

The administration took the hard line with Saddam, and the democrats helped push the public over the edge as well.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:36 AM
I have links to Kevin Bacon.

Doesn't everybody?

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 10:37 AM
Wrong. There is nothing in your article that supports the speculation that the Pentagon report does anything but confirm a lack of operational links. Your desire to take things further is unjustified.



It's not clear that the failure to take the links to an operational level was all one way (Saddam refusing overtures from al Qaeda). In fact, my understanding is that there were overtures made in both directions but that none of them materialized into a cooperative agreement. (See below)

You are trying to apply your own semantic template over the words of the administration and conclude that they were lying based on your choice of definitions instead of accepting the clear distinctions that they made. That's the same kind of dishonesty or incompetence exhibited by the OP article.

Pat a link suggests there is an association or a relationship. Look up the definition. Does having communication mean there is a link? IMO no. I have communication with lots of people on a daily basis and 98% of them I have 0 relationship with.

I never said they were lying and my post to Radar I said there were misleading statements and there is no denying that. I also said that Cheney and others suggested that Iraq and AQ were working together, there is no denying that either.

HonestChieffan
03-11-2008, 10:43 AM
I guess this proves saddam was a good old boy who was just misunderstood.

WoodDraw
03-11-2008, 10:44 AM
Wrong. There is nothing in your article that supports the speculation that the Pentagon report does anything but confirm a lack of operational links. Your desire to take things further is unjustified.

So what was their link - a monthly tea party? The only significant link would be an operational link. The 9/11 report repeatedly tells stories of the two sides making contact and nothing coming of it. Al Qaeda and Iraq never cooperated in their missions, beyond coincidental similarities. In fact, the 9/11 report argues that al Qaeda had more of a connection to the Kurds than Saddam. Any attempt to state a significant link between the two, whether implicit or explicit, is misleading.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:47 AM
Pat a link suggests there is an association or a relationship. Look up the definition. Does having communication mean there is a link? IMO no. I have communication with lots of people on a daily basis and 98% of them I have 0 relationship with.

I never said they were lying and my post to Radar I said there were misleading statements and there is no denying that. I also said that Cheney and others suggested that Iraq and AQ were working together, there is no denying that either.

I looked up the definition and found nothing to exclude using the term "link" based on communication alone. Ironically, "link" is a common term in communications. Your personal preference for the terminology is irrelevant.

The administration must have only seemed misleading to you because you've got this strange personal definition of words like "links" and "ties". If you pay attention to the context used and the explanations offered (including the explicit admission that they didn't have proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11), there is no real excuse for having been misled.

This report covers no new ground.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:58 AM
So what was their link - a monthly tea party? The only significant link would be an operational link. The 9/11 report repeatedly tells stories of the two sides making contact and nothing coming of it. Al Qaeda and Iraq never cooperated in their missions, beyond coincidental similarities. In fact, the 9/11 report argues that al Qaeda had more of a connection to the Kurds than Saddam. Any attempt to state a significant link between the two, whether implicit or explicit, is misleading.

If you allow yourself the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to say that no one should even speculate about an operational link between the two parties because we've had several different groups review both US intelligence and, now, Iraqi records and no operational links have been found. But the administration didn't get to operate with the benefit of hindsight so it's not really fair to criticize them on that basis.

Without the benefit of hindsight, what we have are US intelligence reports of a long series of meetings between the two sides with some information about the agendas of those meetings but certainly not complete information. We don't know of any collaborative agreements between the two but we also don't know that there are no collaborative agreements. We do know that both parties share a common hatred of the US. We also know that al Qaeda pulled off a surprisingly successful attack against the US mainland. And we've received a report from Czech intelligence indicating that one of the hijackers met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in the months leading up to 9/11. Is it worthwhile to investigate a possible collaboration on these facts? Of course it is. Is this enough basis for anyone to claim that we've proven that Saddam is behind 9/11? No. Did the administration speculate about the possibility and share some of the rationale behind that speculation? Yes. Did they claim they had proven a connection between Saddam and 9/11? No.

No one who is reasonably competent and who paid attention to what was actually said has any reason to feel misled. It's very possible for a reasonably competent person who paid attention to have jumped to the same speculative conclusions that the administration may have jumped to, but it's your responsibility to recognize that without proof it remains speculative. No one in the administration ever said, "We've got bulletproof evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot".

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 11:13 AM
If I put my "neocon" hat on I can safely say some of us realized that even if there were no definite links between the two, after 911 the possibility of what could happen if Iraq truly had or sought WMD, coupled with Saddam's track record and the probabilty the Iraq sanctions were falling apart could lead to another possible disaster.

None of that has changed with any of these reports. Several different levels might have gotten the intelligience wrong but the fact remains the world is a better place with Saddam gone. Especially if you factor in what could still have happened if he remained in power.

I guess these op-eds that hash out this stuff we've already been over are just for the current political season.

The administration took the hard line with Saddam, and the democrats helped push the public over the edge as well.

I know it's hard to make it right. Believe me I understand.
Ignoring all the other facts still doesn't make the argument work.
SH, even per his FBI interrogator who was on tv weeks ago, hated AQ as does Iran and that SH disarmed after PGWI.

Even the head of SH's WMD program, who appeared on Fox and now lives in the US, said they disarmed too. Even his son when he defected to Jordan. Even CIA and weapons inspectors. Including former Marine Ritter.

But at least you admitted to wearing the right hat for thinking it would make it so. Those guys have been called delusional before—and NOT for no reason.
If I were you, I'd buy a new hat.

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 11:14 AM
No one who is reasonably competent and who paid attention to what was actually said has any reason to feel misled. It's very possible for a reasonably competent person who paid attention to have jumped to the same speculative conclusions that the administration may have jumped to, but it's your responsibility to recognize that without proof it remains speculative. No one in the administration ever said, "We've got bulletproof evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot".

Pat this is the main problem I have is because Cheney and others speculated or suggested that Iraq and AQ might have been working together. He tries to blur the lines between Al Qaeda and 9/11, and Saddam Hussein and Iraq and most normal working people take his word that it could be possible and then when it turns out it was completely false many people feel like they were mislead.

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 11:16 AM
Reasonably competent? LMAO!!
There were a lot of folks not reasonably competent then.

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 11:18 AM
Reasonably competent? LMAO!!
There were a lot of folks not reasonably competent then.

Yep. People come home turn on the TV and there sits Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld or Powell saying that AQ and Iraq are possibly working together and he wonders why people are so easily mislead.

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 11:30 AM
Yep. People come home turn on the TV and there sits Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld or Powell saying that AQ and Iraq are possibly working together and he wonders why people are so easily mislead.

Especially, the ones that have a man-crush on the millenium's neo-Tricky-Dick!
Ahhh! It's true. Love is blind.

mlyonsd
03-11-2008, 11:49 AM
I know it's hard to make it right. Believe me I understand.
Ignoring all the other facts still doesn't make the argument work.
SH, even per his FBI interrogator who was on tv weeks ago, hated AQ as does Iran and that SH disarmed after PGWI.

Even the head of SH's WMD program, who appeared on Fox and now lives in the US, said they disarmed too. Even his son when he defected to Jordan. Even CIA and weapons inspectors. Including former Marine Ritter.

But at least you admitted to wearing the right hat for thinking it would make it so. Those guys have been called delusional before—and NOT for no reason.
If I were you, I'd buy a new hat.

Thanks for your insight but this has been hashed to death long before you were on the board.

I have no problem admitting I feel the war is/was justified and can easily sleep at night.

Just so we're clear.

tiptap
03-11-2008, 12:09 PM
Will you please donate more of your disposable income to support your war then . I think it is money down a rat hole. And I will vote to stop feeding the Military Industrial Complex. Support your National Guard fore go forays and foreign fights and big ticket boondoggles. May the best argument win in the market place of voters.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 12:22 PM
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. - 9/11 Commission Report, pg 66

SH, even per his FBI interrogator who was on tv weeks ago, hated AQ as does Iran

:LOL:

StcChief
03-11-2008, 12:23 PM
water under the bridge. Two terrorist organisations One an official state, other covert....
the odds they didn't communicate or exchange info. Be it officially documented by Iraq is irrelavent.

Communication and un-official undocumented back scratching to aid both causes Hate and destruction of America/Western interests seems very apparent.

Turn a blind eye if you want and believe it, at your risk.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 12:29 PM
Pat this is the main problem I have is because Cheney and others speculated or suggested that Iraq and AQ might have been working together. He tries to blur the lines between Al Qaeda and 9/11, and Saddam Hussein and Iraq and most normal working people take his word that it could be possible and then when it turns out it was completely false many people feel like they were mislead.




Why don't you understand that he had plenty of reason to speculate in that fashion at that time? It's not the same as lying or even trying to mislead. It's speculation on incomplete information. A long-established history of contacts, a shared hatred of the US, a report of contact between Iraqi intelligence and one of the hijackers, a spectacularly successful attack against our mainland, and a history of collaborative ties between Saddam and other terrorists. That's a pretty good pile of data on which to speculate. And on top of that, the administration has been forthcoming about lacking proof.

Instead of admitting this reality, we continue to get misleading/false cases against the administration like the one you posted. The attempt by the author to mischaracterize Rumsfeld's "bulletproof" comment is particularly offensive, IMO.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 12:32 PM
Yep. People come home turn on the TV and there sits Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld or Powell saying that AQ and Iraq are possibly working together and he wonders why people are so easily mislead.

This is a case of people blaming their own shortcomings on others. Instead of taking responsibility for listening to what was actually said (e.g. possibly working together") they jump to their own unfounded conclusions (e.g. working together). I have no sympathy for them.

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 12:47 PM
Why don't you understand that he had plenty of reason to speculate in that fashion at that time? It's not the same as lying or even trying to mislead. It's speculation on incomplete information. A long-established history of contacts, a shared hatred of the US, a report of contact between Iraqi intelligence and one of the hijackers, a spectacularly successful attack against our mainland, and a history of collaborative ties between Saddam and other terrorists. That's a pretty good pile of data on which to speculate. And on top of that, the administration has been forthcoming about lacking proof.


Do you think we should send American troops and our loved ones overseas to fight over speculation? We should go to war at a much higher threshold than just speculating. Now don't confuse that with pre-imminent attacks and striking terrorist targets because that is a lower threshold.

Listen I have no problem with them speculating in private but when you bring that speculation out to the public right before we go to war I think that is the wrong way to go about it and that leads to people believing they were mislead or lied to.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 02:33 PM
Do you think we should send American troops and our loved ones overseas to fight over speculation? We should go to war at a much higher threshold than just speculating. Now don't confuse that with pre-imminent attacks and striking terrorist targets because that is a lower threshold.

Listen I have no problem with them speculating in private but when you bring that speculation out to the public right before we go to war I think that is the wrong way to go about it and that leads to people believing they were mislead or lied to.

When we attacked Afghanistan, we did so on speculation. IIRC, you say you supported that effort.

You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand say you don't want to hear it if it is speculation and on the other hand complain about the WH failing to make enough intelligence available to the public (or to Congress). Almost everything based on intelligence is speculative.

dirk digler
03-11-2008, 03:11 PM
When we attacked Afghanistan, we did so on speculation. IIRC, you say you supported that effort.

You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand say you don't want to hear it if it is speculation and on the other hand complain about the WH failing to make enough intelligence available to the public (or to Congress). Almost everything based on intelligence is speculative.

LMAO

There was no speculation about Afghanistan we knew exactly where it came from. And yes I supported it and still do.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 03:32 PM
LMAO

There was no speculation about Afghanistan we knew exactly where it came from. And yes I supported it and still do.

How did we know?

banyon
03-11-2008, 03:54 PM
How did we know?

The Taliban claimed responsibility and Afghanistan was sheltering them there.

tiptap
03-11-2008, 04:25 PM
Actually it was Al Quaeda that claimed responsibility and the Taliban that refused to turn them over. The only speculation was in the White House about how soon they could turn to Iraq.

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 04:51 PM
Actually it was Al Quaeda that claimed responsibility and the Taliban that refused to turn them over. The only speculation was in the White House about how soon they could turn to Iraq.

You are 100% correct on this one! :thumb:

Careful now, we're giving RadarCon nervous giddiness.

banyon
03-11-2008, 04:59 PM
Actually it was Al Quaeda that claimed responsibility and the Taliban that refused to turn them over. The only speculation was in the White House about how soon they could turn to Iraq.

Right.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 05:54 PM
Actually it was Al Quaeda that claimed responsibility and the Taliban that refused to turn them over. The only speculation was in the White House about how soon they could turn to Iraq.

Even a claim of responsibility leaves us to speculate. False claims of responsibility are legion.

But beyond that, when did al Qaeda claim responsibility and in what manner?

irishjayhawk
03-11-2008, 06:03 PM
Even a claim of responsibility leaves us to speculate. False claims of responsibility are legion.

But beyond that, when did al Qaeda claim responsibility and in what manner?

For once I have to give you the point here. Even though I disagree with your overarching point.

Bin Laden denied the attacks multiple times. If Bin Laden did, and "al Queda" is "Bin Laden's group" then no, they never took credit.

ALL IIRC.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 06:32 PM
For once I have to give you the point here. Even though I disagree with your overarching point.

Bin Laden denied the attacks multiple times. If Bin Laden did, and "al Queda" is "Bin Laden's group" then no, they never took credit.

ALL IIRC.

That's close. According to this London Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml), bin Laden issued 4 videos shortly after the 9/11 attacks in which he denied being behind the plot. But sometime around the end of October (if my math is right, based on the date of the article it would have been around the 28th of October), a fifth video was released in which he finally admitted his involvement. However, our war in Afghanistan was already well underway by that time. It started on October 7th.

Now, I don't know what kind of classified intelligence our government had available that might have increased their confidence in the speculation that al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, but I'm pretty confident that none of us had access to that intelligence, yet Dirk supported the war at the time on the basis of his own speculation. And whatever intelligence we did have, I can guarantee you that there is at least some chance that it was in error.

Getting back to the Iraq issue, we didn't go to war on the speculation that Saddam was involved in 9/11. That was a fiber in the fabric, but it wasn't the entire basis. We went to war for a wide variety of reasons that have been hashed and rehashed around here again and again so I won't bore you with examples. But Iraq and Afghanistan aren't distinguishable because one was based on speculation and the other was not.

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2008, 07:46 PM
A few years ago, I would have tried to spin this. Now, all I can say is, Go figure. What a lousy administraton. I cannot believe I actually supported this poor excuse of a president.

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2008, 07:51 PM
I'm getting dizzy reading patteeu's spin.

memyselfI
03-11-2008, 08:03 PM
:doh!:

You mean there are people on this planet who still didn't know this?

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:36 PM
A few years ago, I would have tried to spin this. Now, all I can say is, Go figure. What a lousy administraton. I cannot believe I actually supported this poor excuse of a president.

Are you saying that a few years ago you wouldn't have believed what you were saying but you would have spun it anyway? I actually believe what I'm saying and it seems pretty obvious to me.

You sound like Saint Obama material to me.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 06:34 AM
The only speculation was in the White House about how soon they could turn to Iraq.

Got any proof of that, or is this speculation on your part?

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 06:37 AM
You are 100% correct on this one! :thumb:

Careful now, we're giving RadarCon nervous giddiness.

Uh, you do realize that’s half “speculation” right? Aren’t you, like, against speculation? I guess speculation is only acceptable when it fits what you want to believe, huh? :hmmm:

keg in kc
03-12-2008, 07:31 AM
In more shocking news, scientists today confirmed that water is, in fact, wet.

stevieray
03-12-2008, 07:38 AM
..and just because you don't find crack, doesn't mean it wasn't a crack house...

jeez people, get a life.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 08:23 AM
Got any proof of that, or is this speculation on your part?

That has been in almost every documentary made on the war as well as several stories. I'm surprised you are even questioning that.

tiptap
03-12-2008, 08:23 AM
But the value of evidential systems is that to physically act against the "crack house" requires more than hearsay. When asked to harness the governments great power to confront the "crack house" and to draw resources from the community at large, it is not enough to just believe it is so.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 08:25 AM
..and just because you don't find crack, doesn't mean it wasn't a crack house...

jeez people, get a life.

Oh, so evidence isn't a big deal?

If police break down my door suspecting crack and they don't find it, well, there's some serious issues for the department and state down the road.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 08:25 AM
But the value of evidential systems is that to physically act against the "crack house" requires more than hearsay. When asked to harness the governments great power to confront the "crack house" and to draw resources from the community at large, it is not enough to just believe it is so.

Exactly.

Sully
03-12-2008, 08:27 AM
Get a life, guys.

Caring about countrymen dying, possible thousands of innocents from other places dying, and a drain on our resources is so stupid.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 08:29 AM
That has been in almost every documentary made on the war as well as several stories. I'm surprised you are even questioning that.

Its pure speculation and I’m surprised you don’t question that. But I guess skepticism only goes so far when its what you want to believe. :shrug:

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 08:30 AM
Its pure speculation and I’m surprised you don’t question that. But I guess skepticism only goes so far when its what you want to believe. :shrug:

Yes, skepticism when Pentagon officials - numerous of them, have come out and said "We were asked immediately after 9/11 to draw a link to Iraq."

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 08:32 AM
Oh, so evidence isn't a big deal?

If police break down my door suspecting crack and they don't find it, well, there's some serious issues for the department and state down the road.

What if bits of crack are found scattered about but were only made after a certain date? :hmmm:
Its not like you’re opposed to disregarding evidence you don’t want to hear about.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 08:35 AM
Yes, skepticism when Pentagon officials - numerous of them, have come out and said "We were asked immediately after 9/11 to draw a link to Iraq."

They were told to investigate whether there was a link or not.
Strange that you have to mischaracterize an investigation.

tiptap
03-12-2008, 08:37 AM
Ok Rada Chief, the analogy was the difference between evidence and not evidential. It is quite appropriate to address the specifics of the evidential trails. And if we are discussing the details then it has to be the real evidence of real circumstance rather than the continuance of the analogies. We didn't introduce the analogy to talk about the specifics of Iraq. We used the analogy introduced by Stevieray to merely show it was inappropriate.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 08:39 AM
What if bits of crack are found scattered about but were only made after a certain date? :hmmm:
Its not like you’re opposed to disregarding evidence you don’t want to hear about.

You're now talking about to totally different things. We didn't go in because we thought he had WMDs FROM THE FIRST GULF WAR. We went in because he had them NOW. We didn't find evidence for that.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 08:40 AM
They were told to investigate whether there was a link or not.
Strange that you have to mischaracterize an investigation.

Then wtf was you're point when you quoted this:

The only speculation was in the White House about how soon they could turn to Iraq.

Was it the "only speculation" part or the "White House about how soon they could turn to Iraq"?

I guessed on the latter, but you've seemed to prove otherwise.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 08:43 AM
Ok Rada Chief, the analogy was the difference between evidence and not evidential. It is quite appropriate to address the specifics of the evidential trails. And if we are discussing the details then it has to be the real evidence of real circumstance rather than the continuance of the analogies. We didn't introduce the analogy to talk about the specifics of Iraq. We used the analogy introduced by Stevieray to merely show it was inappropriate.

Sure, we can, and have, discussed the specifics but it’s not like anyone is changing their mind.
And I used the same analogy to show you Steve Ray’s opinion isn’t as irrelevant as you may want to believe. I assume that’s why you’re now stepping away from the whole analogy thing.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 08:49 AM
You're now talking about to totally different things.

No, it’s the exact same thing. Your need to separate them seems to be where our friction is.

We didn't go in because we thought he had WMDs FROM THE FIRST GULF WAR. We went in because he had them NOW. We didn't find evidence for that.

:spock: How in the world does this make any sense?
Just because most of what we’ve found was manufactured before a certain date doesn’t mean he didn’t have anything “now”, it in fact points to the fact that he didn’t fully disarm as required. Which would also mean he did in fact “have them NOW”. :shake:
What we haven’t found evidence of is that he manufactured, as in mass produced, any more chemical weapons after GWI. Doesn’t mean development stopped, just manufacture.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 08:51 AM
Then wtf was you're point when you quoted this:



Was it the "only speculation" part or the "White House about how soon they could turn to Iraq"?

I guessed on the latter, but you've seemed to prove otherwise.

You really don’t see the irony in speculating while bitching about speculation?

patteeu
03-12-2008, 08:53 AM
You're now talking about to totally different things. We didn't go in because we thought he had WMDs FROM THE FIRST GULF WAR. We went in because he had them NOW. We didn't find evidence for that.

We went in for a lot of reasons. One of those reasons clearly *was* that we knew he had stockpiles left over from the first Gulf War that hadn't been accounted for in the disarmament process. While it's true that an ongoing WMD program would have been even more concerning, it's not accurate to reject the older stockpiles as completely insignificant and unrelated to our invasion.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 08:56 AM
Then wtf was you're point when you quoted this:



Was it the "only speculation" part or the "White House about how soon they could turn to Iraq"?

I guessed on the latter, but you've seemed to prove otherwise.

Maybe you didn't intend your statement about directing people to "draw links" between Iraq and 9/11 the way it came across. To me it sounded like you were saying that the administration set out to force links whether there were any or not, but the truth is that they were investigating whether there were links or not, not forcing them.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 08:58 AM
Maybe you didn't intend your statement about directing people to "draw links" between Iraq and 9/11 the way it came across. To me it sounded like you were saying that the administration set out to force links whether there were any or not, but the truth is that they were investigating whether there were links or not, not forcing them.

That’s how I took it also.

tiptap
03-12-2008, 09:08 AM
Sure, we can, and have, discussed the specifics but it’s not like anyone is changing their mind.
And I used the same analogy to show you Steve Ray’s opinion isn’t as irrelevant as you may want to believe. I assume that’s why you’re now stepping away from the whole analogy thing.

If I argue for the evidential process, it must include the specifics of the case. And yes we have and will again, revisit the agreed upon facts that Saddam had WMD during the first Gulf War. Was further along even in the Nuclear game then we had supposed. But the evidence that he had those physical capabilities the second time around were solely lacking. And was bourned out. Likewise, just like there are occasionally diplomatic feelers and communication with even Castro, we can find overtures from Al Quaeda toward Saddam. But the gulf between the two was one of overall suspicion and disregard on the part of Saddam.

Baby Lee
03-12-2008, 09:19 AM
I don't know where people get their own understandings from. I can only say, for myself, I was never under the impression that Hussein/Iraq was anything more than a range from generally indifferent to peripherally assistive to terrorist prep/training in his country.
I never thought the Iraq invasion was 'payback' for their complicity in 9/11. It was a response to the growing threat AFTER THE ATTACK, that Iraq was a potential source of materials and haven for operatives, based on Hussein's cagey-ness about his weapons programs, and his solicitous demeanor toward terror organizations. That Iraq was on the road to become the new terror rest stop and refueling center.
That with the side fact that Hussein was slaughtering dissidents, and the sanctions were not affecting the power in Iraq while it WAS starving the populace.

tiptap
03-12-2008, 09:25 AM
I don't know where people get their own understandings from. I can only say, for myself, I was never under the impression that Hussein/Iraq was anything more than a range from generally indifferent to peripherally assistive to terrorist prep/training in his country.
I never thought the Iraq invasion was 'payback' for their complicity in 9/11. It was a response to the growing threat AFTER THE ATTACK, that Iraq was a potential source of materials and haven for operatives, based on Hussein's cagey-ness about his weapons programs, and his solicitous demeanor toward terror organizations. That Iraq was on the road to become the new terror rest stop and refueling center.
That with the side fact that Hussein was slaughtering dissidents, and the sanctions were not affecting the power in Iraq while it WAS starving the populace.

t was a response to the growing threat AFTER THE ATTACK, that Iraq was a potential source of materials and haven for operatives, based on Hussein's cagey-ness about his weapons programs, and his solicitous demeanor toward terror organizations. That Iraq was on the road to become the new terror rest stop and refueling center.

It is this jump that we did not find the level of evidence. We had Al Quaeda on the run in Afghanistan so how was the threat rising? Very few outside the US thought the evidence rose to a level to mean WAR with Iraq. Yes there was new influence in the world community to be diligent about isolating Saddam's military efforts. But we pushed it, by ourselves way past the evidence would be in a considered frame of mind. And it has cost us DEARLY.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 10:04 AM
If I argue for the evidential process, it must include the specifics of the case. And yes we have and will again, revisit the agreed upon facts that Saddam had WMD during the first Gulf War. Was further along even in the Nuclear game then we had supposed. But the evidence that he had those physical capabilities the second time around were solely lacking. And was bourned out.

What exactly was “bourn out”? Because the evidence points to SH maintaining the ability to produce more, supposedly once sanctions were lifted, even if we haven’t found evidence that more weapons were actually produced.

Likewise, just like there are occasionally diplomatic feelers and communication with even Castro, we can find overtures from Al Quaeda toward Saddam.

And from Saddam to AQ. There was plenty of talking going on, what that meant towards cooperative relationship is open for debate.

But the gulf between the two was one of overall suspicion and disregard on the part of Saddam.

That’s pure speculation on your part and not “bourn out” by the evidence.

a1na2
03-12-2008, 10:09 AM
If there are no links, or were not any links how did the training camps get formed? Saddam was at least complicent with them due to the fact that he allowed the camps to exist. All he had was plausable deniability.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 10:10 AM
It is this jump that we did not find the level of evidence. We had Al Quaeda on the run in Afghanistan so how was the threat rising?

Uh, because many of those AQ running from Afghanistan were landing in Iraq?
Seeing as how Saddam was known to be cozying up to terrorists, was at the least evasive WRT his weapons programs, and had an acknowledged hate for us, wouldn’t that combination constitute a “rising threat”?

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 10:15 AM
No, it’s the exact same thing. Your need to separate them seems to be where our friction is.

No, it appears our friction is what constitutes speculation.



:spock: How in the world does this make any sense?
Just because most of what we’ve found was manufactured before a certain date doesn’t mean he didn’t have anything “now”, it in fact points to the fact that he didn’t fully disarm as required. Which would also mean he did in fact “have them NOW”. :shake:
What we haven’t found evidence of is that he manufactured, as in mass produced, any more chemical weapons after GWI. Doesn’t mean development stopped, just manufacture.

I have to disagree. What the hell was the point of going to the UN? We weren't highlighting places that had WMD left from the First Gulf war. Otherwise, weapons inspectors would probably have known about them and noted them. The UN said there wasn't any evidence of WMD or at least not enough to warrant immediate action. If this is true and the whole point was to find WMD no matter who put actually put them there or when they were put there (us in the First Gulf War), then why did we even bother outlining an entire case of "NEW" evidence to the UN. You know, where Colin Powell had to get up and tell (some say lie) about these trucks and facilities.


We went in for a lot of reasons. One of those reasons clearly *was* that we knew he had stockpiles left over from the first Gulf War that hadn't been accounted for in the disarmament process. While it's true that an ongoing WMD program would have been even more concerning, it's not accurate to reject the older stockpiles as completely insignificant and unrelated to our invasion.

Again, then what was the point of the UN case? We didn't go to the UN and say "we know he has WMDs left over from the first gulf war". We went in with "new" evidence and tried to make a case based on it.

I would be interested if you can find a link to a story that outlines that we specifically mention "WMDs from the first gulf war" in our case to the UN or, better, to the American people.

Maybe you didn't intend your statement about directing people to "draw links" between Iraq and 9/11 the way it came across. To me it sounded like you were saying that the administration set out to force links whether there were any or not, but the truth is that they were investigating whether there were links or not, not forcing them.

I was merely suggesting that Radar Chief was asking for proof for tiptap's statement about Speculation being the white house looking for links to Iraq. I replied that it's been covered pretty thoroughly by news outlets and documentaries that the administration immediately started looking for ties with Iraq. Some go as far as to interview people that say Rumsfeld told them to manufacture evidence.

The mere fact that the administration immediately blamed 9/11 on Bin Laden (who they "knew" was in Afganistan) but insisted on finding links to Iraq (investigating or fabricating) is pretty telling. And since it's been accounted for by many sources, I am pretty sure it's not speculation, which is why I said what I did that triggered the entire rest of the babbling.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 10:16 AM
Uh, because many of those AQ running from Afghanistan were landing in Iraq?
Seeing as how Saddam was known to be cozying up to terrorists, was at the least evasive WRT his weapons programs, and had an acknowledged hate for us, wouldn’t that combination constitute a “rising threat”?

So was it the fact that Iraq was hiding terrorists or the fact he had WMDs? I clearly remember going to the UN on the WMD front. Was that just a front for the rest of the excuses?

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 10:18 AM
I don't know where people get their own understandings from. I can only say, for myself, I was never under the impression that Hussein/Iraq was anything more than a range from generally indifferent to peripherally assistive to terrorist prep/training in his country.
I never thought the Iraq invasion was 'payback' for their complicity in 9/11. It was a response to the growing threat AFTER THE ATTACK, that Iraq was a potential source of materials and haven for operatives, based on Hussein's cagey-ness about his weapons programs, and his solicitous demeanor toward terror organizations. That Iraq was on the road to become the new terror rest stop and refueling center.
That with the side fact that Hussein was slaughtering dissidents, and the sanctions were not affecting the power in Iraq while it WAS starving the populace.

People get misconceptions based on the 29387298732987301 reasons we went in while the defenders of the war say that all of those reasons were present in the many cases we made to the UN, American people and our allies. Others see it as a change from one reason to another to another because each one kept failing or wasn't sufficient on it's own.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 10:24 AM
No, it appears our friction is what constitutes speculation.




I have to disagree. What the hell was the point of going to the UN? We weren't highlighting places that had WMD left from the First Gulf war. Otherwise, weapons inspectors would probably have known about them and noted them. The UN said there wasn't any evidence of WMD or at least not enough to warrant immediate action. If this is true and the whole point was to find WMD no matter who put actually put them there or when they were put there (us in the First Gulf War), then why did we even bother outlining an entire case of "NEW" evidence to the UN. You know, where Colin Powell had to get up and tell (some say lie) about these trucks and facilities.




Again, then what was the point of the UN case? We didn't go to the UN and say "we know he has WMDs left over from the first gulf war". We went in with "new" evidence and tried to make a case based on it.

I would be interested if you can find a link to a story that outlines that we specifically mention "WMDs from the first gulf war" in our case to the UN or, better, to the American people.



I was merely suggesting that Radar Chief was asking for proof for tiptap's statement about Speculation being the white house looking for links to Iraq. I replied that it's been covered pretty thoroughly by news outlets and documentaries that the administration immediately started looking for ties with Iraq. Some go as far as to interview people that say Rumsfeld told them to manufacture evidence.

The mere fact that the administration immediately blamed 9/11 on Bin Laden (who they "knew" was in Afganistan) but insisted on finding links to Iraq (investigating or fabricating) is pretty telling. And since it's been accounted for by many sources, I am pretty sure it's not speculation, which is why I said what I did that triggered the entire rest of the babbling.

We went to the UN talking about Saddam not fully disarming. Do you really think “not fully disarming” really means “not fully disarming of weapons made past a certain date”? What am I asking you for, of course you do. I’ve pointed this out to you before but you still maintain this same line of rhetoric.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 10:25 AM
People get misconceptions based on the 29387298732987301 reasons we went in while the defenders of the war say that all of those reasons were present in the many cases we made to the UN, American people and our allies. Others see it as a change from one reason to another to another because each one kept failing or wasn't sufficient on it's own.

IN the end, you apparently want to play the victim, believe you were lied to, so I guess that’s entirely your prerogative and I should just leave you to it.

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 10:28 AM
So was it the fact that Iraq was hiding terrorists or the fact he had WMDs? I clearly remember going to the UN on the WMD front. Was that just a front for the rest of the excuses?

Your memory isn't very clear.

Powell: Iraq hiding weapons, aiding terrorists
Annan: War not inevitable
Thursday, February 6, 2003 Posted: 9:05 AM EST (1405 GMT)


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.un/

Chiefnj2
03-12-2008, 10:38 AM
The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]

patteeu
03-12-2008, 10:57 AM
Again, then what was the point of the UN case? We didn't go to the UN and say "we know he has WMDs left over from the first gulf war". We went in with "new" evidence and tried to make a case based on it.

I would be interested if you can find a link to a story that outlines that we specifically mention "WMDs from the first gulf war" in our case to the UN or, better, to the American people.

You've got such a narrow focus. We didn't go to war on the basis of one single reason. We had a whole array of reasons, some of which may not have been enough by themselves to justify a war, but which taken as a whole were judged by this administration and majorities in both houses of Congress to be sufficient justification.

But just to end the debate over whether the existing stockpiles were an issue or not, here is an excerpt from SecState Colin Powell's testimony at the UN (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html):

Let me set the stage with three key points that all of us need to keep in mind: First, Saddam Hussein has used these horrific weapons on another country and on his own people. In fact, in the history of chemical warfare, no country has had more battlefield experience with chemical weapons since World War I than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry--6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war--UNMOVIC says the amount of chemical agent in them would be in the order of 1,000 tons. These quantities of chemical weapons are now unaccounted for.

Dr. Blix has quipped that, quote, ``Mustard gas is not (inaudible) You are supposed to know what you did with it.''

We believe Saddam Hussein knows what he did with it, and he has not come clean with the international community. We have evidence these weapons existed. What we don't have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are. That is what we are still waiting for.

Third point, Iraq's record on chemical weapons is replete with lies. It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons.

The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law. UNSCOM also gained forensic evidence that Iraq had produced VX and put it into weapons for delivery.

There it is right there, clear as day.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 11:02 AM
So was it the fact that Iraq was hiding terrorists or the fact he had WMDs? I clearly remember going to the UN on the WMD front. Was that just a front for the rest of the excuses?

It's not either or, it's both and then some.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 11:03 AM
The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]

Point?

mlyonsd
03-12-2008, 11:25 AM
I don't know where people get their own understandings from. I can only say, for myself, I was never under the impression that Hussein/Iraq was anything more than a range from generally indifferent to peripherally assistive to terrorist prep/training in his country.
I never thought the Iraq invasion was 'payback' for their complicity in 9/11. It was a response to the growing threat AFTER THE ATTACK, that Iraq was a potential source of materials and haven for operatives, based on Hussein's cagey-ness about his weapons programs, and his solicitous demeanor toward terror organizations. That Iraq was on the road to become the new terror rest stop and refueling center.
That with the side fact that Hussein was slaughtering dissidents, and the sanctions were not affecting the power in Iraq while it WAS starving the populace.

Absolutely fricking Bingo.

It was always about SH's past history coupled with the danger he posed in the future if left alone.

That, and the fact almost every political leader on both sides of the aisle agreed with our and 95% of the world's intelligience organizations.

This "but, but, but, I was lied to" seems to me to be just another example of not accepting responsibility and a need to find a scapegoat for one's own beliefs at the time.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I just think unless you always carried the position the war was wrong from the start you maybe share in some of the responsibility for us being in Iraq.

StcChief
03-12-2008, 12:23 PM
Absolutely fricking Bingo.

It was always about SH's past history coupled with the danger he posed in the future if left alone.

That, and the fact almost every political leader on both sides of the aisle agreed with our and 95% of the world's intelligience organizations.

This "but, but, but, I was lied to" seems to me to be just another example of not accepting responsibility and a need to find a scapegoat for one's own beliefs at the time.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I just think unless you always carried the position the war was wrong from the start you maybe share in some of the responsibility for us being in Iraq.

Yep... and where would Iraq be now and what would have transpired since 2003 if we let him and uday/kusay run rough shod over the populace, and the rest of the middle east.
how many $25K suicide bombers would have attacked around ME and world at his command?

penchief
03-12-2008, 12:56 PM
Heh

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had “long-established ties” with al-Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al-Qaida.
“He was a patron of terrorism,” Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. “He had long established ties with al-Qaida.”

Dick Cheney is an asshole royale. Anyone who can't see that by now has got to be as blind as a bat. He has an agenda that does not include the best interests of our country or our democratic traditions. He is a power player to the extreme.

IMO, Dick Cheney is a corporate fascist. He's a liar and a cheat. He evades accountability and he's been willing to use the people's government as a weapon against the people in order to satisfy that corpo-fascist agenda. He's been willing to usurp public resources as a means to transfer those resources to the greedy entities that share his fascist agenda, thereby, undermining the public good and limiting the ability of the poeple to restist the Neocon right-wing power grab.

JMO.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 01:05 PM
You've got such a narrow focus. We didn't go to war on the basis of one single reason. We had a whole array of reasons, some of which may not have been enough by themselves to justify a war, but which taken as a whole were judged by this administration and majorities in both houses of Congress to be sufficient justification.

So the republican party judged it so?

But just to end the debate over whether the existing stockpiles were an issue or not, here is an excerpt from SecState Colin Powell's testimony at the UN (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html):



There it is right there, clear as day.

This does two things for me. It:

a) Makes me concede any point about "old" WMDs not being presented at the UN
b) Says to me that numbers mean a significant deal. We didn't find anywhere close to the amount of weapons we thought they had. And now since we didn't but we did find SOME, it justifies everything. "Oh, they're numbers were off". When does that error become big enough that it is reasonable to assume we wouldn't have invaded?


IN the end, you apparently want to play the victim, believe you were lied to, so I guess that’s entirely your prerogative and I should just leave you to it.

Sometimes what some consider a "lie" and what some consider a "massive exaggeration" is closer than one might think. That is, Bush can say things like they are an immediate threat with WMDs and they have WMDs and it only takes 1 WMD found (not one type, ONE, singular) to validate the claim. So we find 1 WMD which validates the claim and makes it technically not a lie. But at what point does saying they have x (where x is greater than 1) WMDs and we only find 1, become a lie?



@patt - What are the greatest benefits of the Iraq war? Was it worth it?

patteeu
03-12-2008, 01:21 PM
Dick Cheney is an asshole royale. Anyone who can't see that by now has got to be as blind as a bat. He has an agenda that does not include the best interests of our country or our democratic traditions. He is a power player to the extreme.

IMO, Dick Cheney is a corporate fascist. He's a liar and a cheat. And he's willing to use the people's government as a weapon against the people in order to satisfy his fascist agenda. He's willing to usurp the public's resources in order to undermine the public's welfare in favor of that greedy agenda.

That's got to be one of the most insane things I've ever heard you say, pen.

The United States could sure use a lot more Dick Cheney's. He's a man of principle and a rarity in Washington in that he didn't take the job of VP to see what he could do for himself, but instead to see what he could do for his president and his country. He decided before he accepted the role that he wouldn't seek the presidency at the end of Bush's term because he felt that he needed to insure that he could commit himself to the president's agenda without any cross-purposes getting in the way.

He's a loving family man and he's never been involved in any scandalous behavior. At least, nothing that wasn't really politics dressed up as scandal. He doesn't live to serve his own reputation, he lives to serve his country. He doesn't bother with the media, even though he realizes that the vacuum that creates invites plenty of speculation, much of it negative.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 01:24 PM
So the republican party judged it so?

Our government judged it so. Our government is made up of Republicans, democrats and independents.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 01:36 PM
Our government judged it so. Our government is made up of Republicans, democrats and independents.

It was a loaded statement. You said "majority". I kidded with republican party since they were the majority.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 01:37 PM
That's got to be one of the most insane things I've ever heard you say, pen.

The United States could sure use a lot more Dick Cheney's. He's a man of principle and a rarity in Washington in that he didn't take the job of VP to see what he could do for himself, but instead to see what he could do for his president and his country. He decided before he accepted the role that he wouldn't seek the presidency at the end of Bush's term because he felt that he needed to insure that he could commit himself to the president's agenda without any cross-purposes getting in the way.

He's a loving family man and he's never been involved in any scandalous behavior. At least, nothing that wasn't really politics dressed up as scandal. He doesn't live to serve his own reputation, he lives to serve his country. He doesn't bother with the media, even though he realizes that the vacuum that creates invites plenty of speculation, much of it negative.

Do you, or have you considered, writing for the Onion?

dirk digler
03-12-2008, 01:41 PM
That's got to be one of the most insane things I've ever heard you say, pen.

The United States could sure use a lot more Dick Cheney's. He's a man of principle and a rarity in Washington in that he didn't take the job of VP to see what he could do for himself, but instead to see what he could do for his president and his country. He decided before he accepted the role that he wouldn't seek the presidency at the end of Bush's term because he felt that he needed to insure that he could commit himself to the president's agenda without any cross-purposes getting in the way.

He's a loving family man and he's never been involved in any scandalous behavior. At least, nothing that wasn't really politics dressed up as scandal. He doesn't live to serve his own reputation, he lives to serve his country. He doesn't bother with the media, even though he realizes that the vacuum that creates invites plenty of speculation, much of it negative.

LMAO

LMAO

Sorry I had to get a cheap post in so I could be #100. :D

penchief
03-12-2008, 01:47 PM
That's got to be one of the most insane things I've ever heard you say, pen.

The United States could sure use a lot more Dick Cheney's. He's a man of principle and a rarity in Washington in that he didn't take the job of VP to see what he could do for himself, but instead to see what he could do for his president and his country. He decided before he accepted the role that he wouldn't seek the presidency at the end of Bush's term because he felt that he needed to insure that he could commit himself to the president's agenda without any cross-purposes getting in the way.

He's a loving family man and he's never been involved in any scandalous behavior. At least, nothing that wasn't really politics dressed up as scandal. He doesn't live to serve his own reputation, he lives to serve his country. He doesn't bother with the media, even though he realizes that the vacuum that creates invites plenty of speculation, much of it negative.

Blah, blah, blah.

He's been at the forefront of every deception this administration has perpetrated. He's evaded accountability like no one before him. His right-hand man took a bullet for him knowing that he would eventually be pardoned. We still don't know if the Cheney Energy Task Force Meetings were the prelude to the invasion of Iraq because TRANSPARENCY is not part of the Bush/Cheney vocabulary. And he lied about every reason this country invaded oil-rich Iraq. Meanwhile his former company is getting obscenely rich off the cluster**** in Iraq. He's a complete and total sellout (and his family isn't far behind).

As smart as you are, I can only assume that you are playing devil's advocate when it comes to Dick Cheney. No one has betrayed the virtues of this country more than Cheney and Bush. If you really believe what you say about him, all I can say is that you have to be one super far gone dude, man.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 01:55 PM
This does two things for me. It:

a) Makes me concede any point about "old" WMDs not being presented at the UN
b) Says to me that numbers mean a significant deal. We didn't find anywhere close to the amount of weapons we thought they had. And now since we didn't but we did find SOME, it justifies everything. "Oh, they're numbers were off". When does that error become big enough that it is reasonable to assume we wouldn't have invaded?

I don't think it's a matter of numbers. If we knew that Saddam had absolutely no WMD, new or old, but we believed he had plans to ramp up WMD capability as soon as sanctions crumbled, we may well have done the same thing.

Sometimes what some consider a "lie" and what some consider a "massive exaggeration" is closer than one might think. That is, Bush can say things like they are an immediate threat with WMDs and they have WMDs and it only takes 1 WMD found (not one type, ONE, singular) to validate the claim. So we find 1 WMD which validates the claim and makes it technically not a lie. But at what point does saying they have x (where x is greater than 1) WMDs and we only find 1, become a lie?

WTF, man? The Bush administration admits that they were wrong about much of their intelligence assessment. Finding 1 WMD doesn't change the fact that they got things wrong, but it does put the lie to claims by critics that we have yet to find any WMD. If we accept as a given that the Bush administration was wrong about WMD in several respects, that's not enough to conclude that they lied about anything. Your choice between "lying" and "massively exaggerating" is a false choice. What's more, it's the people who insist on calling these mistakes lies without a real basis for doing so who are, themselves, either lying or mistaken.


@patt - What are the greatest benefits of the Iraq war? Was it worth it?

So far? In no particular order:

* We have not experienced another major attack on our soil since 9/11. It's not irrational to believe that part of this is due to the fact that al Qaeda has focused it's energy on defeating us in Iraq and reestablishing itself in the border region of Afghanistan. The "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" theory seems to be paying off.

* We have shown that, at least so far, the US is not the paper tiger that Osama bin Laden believed us to be. We've taken al Qaeda's best shot and we're still standing in Iraq, despite the pressure from our home front that bin Laden counted on being his 12th man (to use a football term).

* As a result of our persistence in Iraq, and our military gains of the last several months, there are signs that public opinion across the middle east is turning against al Qaeda (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=181400).

* We have at least a temporary base on which to forward deploy a substantial military presence near one of the most strategic locations on Earth in terms of both oil flow and general shipping. This base replaces that which was lost when the Saudis found it politically untenable to allow us to remain on their soil.

* We've toppled Saddam Hussein's anti-American regime.

* We've broken with the failed status-quo-worshipping foreign policy of the last several decades.

* We've got a US military presence on both the east and west border of the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, Iran.

* We're in the process of standing up an Iraq that is based on freedom and that can be an ally in the GWoT although it remains to be seen whether we can stick it out long enough to accomplish this goal.

It won't be worth it if we bail out and lose all the gains we've made so far and abandon those we have yet to achieve. Whether it was worth doing, as in "if I had it to do over again, would I?", in the long run will depend on what we accomplish.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 02:22 PM
Blah, blah, blah.

He's been at the forefront of every deception this administration has perpetrated. He's evaded accountability like no one before him. His right-hand man took a bullet for him knowing that he would eventually be pardoned. We still don't know if the Cheney Energy Task Force Meetings were the prelude to the invasion of Iraq because TRANSPARENCY is not part of the Bush/Cheney vocabulary. And he lied about every reason this country invaded oil-rich Iraq. Meanwhile his former company is getting obscenely rich off the cluster**** in Iraq. He's a complete and total sellout (and his family isn't far behind).

As smart as you are, I can only assume that you are playing devil's advocate when it comes to Dick Cheney. No one has betrayed the virtues of this country more than Cheney and Bush. If you really believe what you say about him, all I can say is that you have to be one super far gone dude, man.

I think I'll create a Dick Cheney thread at some point and maybe we can talk about the man they call Big Time a little bit there. For now though, I'll just say that there isn't anything wrong with the Cheney Energy Task Force. They put out a report (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/2001/index.html). Can you point out what's so controversial about it? You're just sore because they didn't make the same legal mistake that Hillary did with her Health Care Task Force so they got to keep their deliberations secret instead of opening them up to political attack throughout the process.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 02:48 PM
I don't think it's a matter of numbers. If we knew that Saddam had absolutely no WMD, new or old, but we believed he had plans to ramp up WMD capability as soon as sanctions crumbled, we may well have done the same thing.

You still didn't really address what mattered. It is a matter of numbers. If I say there are 300000 WMDs in Colombia and we invade and we find 1 WMD, does that constitute a lie? It seems to me you say no because we found one. Therefore, they didn't lie, they were just mistaken. So I guess, based on what you've been saying, the line can go like this now:

Bush made a mistake. People's lives were taken.

Where's the line between that and

Bush lied. People died.

?



WTF, man? The Bush administration admits that they were wrong about much of their intelligence assessment. Finding 1 WMD doesn't change the fact that they got things wrong, but it does put the lie to claims by critics that we have yet to find any WMD. If we accept as a given that the Bush administration was wrong about WMD in several respects, that's not enough to conclude that they lied about anything. Your choice between "lying" and "massively exaggerating" is a false choice. What's more, it's the people who insist on calling these mistakes lies without a real basis for doing so who are, themselves, either lying or mistaken.

I think see above.



So far? In no particular order:

* We have not experienced another major attack on our soil since 9/11. It's not irrational to believe that part of this is due to the fact that al Qaeda has focused it's energy on defeating us in Iraq and reestablishing itself in the border region of Afghanistan. The "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" theory seems to be paying off.

And the years before that without an attack?


* We have shown that, at least so far, the US is not the paper tiger that Osama bin Laden believed us to be. We've taken al Qaeda's best shot and we're still standing in Iraq, despite the pressure from our home front that bin Laden counted on being his 12th man (to use a football term).

You're in a position to say that they've made their best shot?


* As a result of our persistence in Iraq, and our military gains of the last several months, there are signs that public opinion across the middle east is turning against al Qaeda (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=181400).

And against religion as a whole, but I think it would be absurd to say that the US is the MAIN reason for this.

* We have at least a temporary base on which to forward deploy a substantial military presence near one of the most strategic locations on Earth in terms of both oil flow and general shipping. This base replaces that which was lost when the Saudis found it politically untenable to allow us to remain on their soil.


So, you are saying - I'm sure you've never denied - that the war was, in part, fought for oil and ports?


* We've toppled Saddam Hussein's anti-American regime.

Fair enough. Although, I really wonder why we care if a country is anti-American or not. (Assuming they don't act on it, as SH hadn't really. Oh, and that we put him in power...)

* We've broken with the failed status-quo-worshipping foreign policy of the last several decades.

You do realize that it could be for the worse, not just the better?


* We've got a US military presence on both the east and west border of the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, Iran.

That's fine, but it's also entirely plausible that our military presence in the ME created the biggest state sponsor of terrorism/anti-western culture in the world.

* We're in the process of standing up an Iraq that is based on freedom and that can be an ally in the GWoT although it remains to be seen whether we can stick it out long enough to accomplish this goal.

Okay, so you are admitting we're trying what Russia did with Communism and what WE were so afraid of? Essentially, we've lost empathy.


It won't be worth it if we bail out and lose all the gains we've made so far and abandon those we have yet to achieve. Whether it was worth doing, as in "if I had it to do over again, would I?", in the long run will depend on what we accomplish.

Has it been worth it thus far?

Taco John
03-12-2008, 04:19 PM
That's got to be one of the most insane things I've ever heard you say, pen.

The United States could sure use a lot more Dick Cheney's. He's a man of principle and a rarity in Washington in that he didn't take the job of VP to see what he could do for himself, but instead to see what he could do for his president and his country. He decided before he accepted the role that he wouldn't seek the presidency at the end of Bush's term because he felt that he needed to insure that he could commit himself to the president's agenda without any cross-purposes getting in the way.

He's a loving family man and he's never been involved in any scandalous behavior. At least, nothing that wasn't really politics dressed up as scandal. He doesn't live to serve his own reputation, he lives to serve his country. He doesn't bother with the media, even though he realizes that the vacuum that creates invites plenty of speculation, much of it negative.



Hook, line, and sinker...

Taco John
03-12-2008, 04:22 PM
I think I'll create a Dick Cheney thread at some point and maybe we can talk about the man they call Big Time a little bit there. For now though, I'll just say that there isn't anything wrong with the Cheney Energy Task Force. They put out a report (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/2001/index.html). Can you point out what's so controversial about it? You're just sore because they didn't make the same legal mistake that Hillary did with her Health Care Task Force so they got to keep their deliberations secret instead of opening them up to political attack throughout the process.



Not only hook line and sinker, but also apologizing for the fisherman who's hook is in your mouth.

You're praising the idea of keeping the task force secret for the fact that they didn't want political attack through the process? That's about the dumbest thing I believe I've ever seen you say.

a1na2
03-12-2008, 04:30 PM
WTF, man? The Bush administration admits that they were wrong about much of their intelligence assessment. Finding 1 WMD doesn't change the fact that they got things wrong, but it does put the lie to claims by critics that we have yet to find any WMD. If we accept as a given that the Bush administration was wrong about WMD in several respects, that's not enough to conclude that they lied about anything. Your choice between "lying" and "massively exaggerating" is a false choice. What's more, it's the people who insist on calling these mistakes lies without a real basis for doing so who are, themselves, either lying or mistaken.

Something that is being bypassed here is that much of the intelligence came from the previous administration. I'm not trying to absolve the current administration for their mistakes, but there are enough mistakes and invalid intelligence to share between clinton and Bush.

penchief
03-12-2008, 04:52 PM
Something that is being bypassed here is that much of the intelligence came from the previous administration. I'm not trying to absolve the current administration for their mistakes, but there are enough mistakes and invalid intelligence to share between clinton and Bush.

But the Clinton Administration didn't try to axaggerate or lie about the intelligence in order to dishonestly railroad the country into an unjustified war (and an endless and costly occupation that may ultimately lead to our country's permanent loss of standing in the world).

That's a big difference, brother. One guy had the pragmatic sense to know better while the other guy was just a puppet.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 05:50 PM
You still didn't really address what mattered. It is a matter of numbers. If I say there are 300000 WMDs in Colombia and we invade and we find 1 WMD, does that constitute a lie? It seems to me you say no because we found one. Therefore, they didn't lie, they were just mistaken. So I guess, based on what you've been saying, the line can go like this now:

Bush made a mistake. People's lives were taken.

Where's the line between that and

Bush lied. People died.

?




I think see above.

The number makes absolutely no difference. If you get something wrong because you relied in good faith on faulty information, you aren't lying, you're just wrong. There is no line.

If you knew that you were wrong based on the information you had when you said something, it doesn't matter if somehow you miraculously turn out to be right on the money, you still lied.

This isn't rocket science.

The only reason finding "1" makes any difference at all is because it proves you and others like you wrong every time you try to say that we didn't find any WMD in Iraq. Up until today, you were apparently under the mistaken impression that Saddam having old WMD didn't matter to us at all so you weren't lying when you said we hadn't found any (of the relevant WMD), you were just mistaken.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 06:00 PM
And the years before that without an attack?

Have nothing to do with this.

You're in a position to say that they've made their best shot?

Certainly it's their best shot so far. If they've got a better shot in reserve, they should have used it because we have a lot of weak sisters in this country who were on the verge of storming the WH to force us to withdraw as it is.

So, you are saying - I'm sure you've never denied - that the war was, in part, fought for oil and ports?

I've never denied it to the extent that we have considered it a vital national interest to make sure our access to oil remains unimpeded by our enemies. I deny it to the extent that you may be suggesting that we want to take the oil or the ports.

Fair enough. Although, I really wonder why we care if a country is anti-American or not. (Assuming they don't act on it, as SH hadn't really. Oh, and that we put him in power...)

Saddam acted on it several times. He refused to leave Kuwait without a war, he targeted our aircraft in the no-fly zones repeatedly, he tried to assassinate one of our former presidents, and he harbored terrorists who had killed Americans, just to name a few things.

You do realize that it could be for the worse, not just the better?

Sure, but I don't believe it. We are far better off with instability while we are capable of dictating our interests if necessary than we would be if it happened when we were weak and could only let fate carry us along.

That's fine, but it's also entirely plausible that our military presence in the ME created the biggest state sponsor of terrorism/anti-western culture in the world.

Our military presence didn't create Iran or the Iranian revolution. You can try to hang that on our CIA and our support of the Shah I suppose, but not on our military presence.

Okay, so you are admitting we're trying what Russia did with Communism and what WE were so afraid of? Essentially, we've lost empathy.

More or less, but it's not what WE were so afraid of and we haven't lost empathy.

Has it been worth it thus far?

Was your college tuition worth it on the first day of class? How do you answer that question?

banyon
03-12-2008, 06:01 PM
The number makes absolutely no difference. If you get something wrong because you relied in good faith on faulty information, you aren't lying, you're just wrong. There is no line.

.

Good thing that isn't an issue here.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 06:01 PM
Not only hook line and sinker, but also apologizing for the fisherman who's hook is in your mouth.

You're praising the idea of keeping the task force secret for the fact that they didn't want political attack through the process? That's about the dumbest thing I believe I've ever seen you say.

I'm sure I've said much dumber things. Why do you think this one is tops?

patteeu
03-12-2008, 06:02 PM
Good thing that isn't an issue here.

I guess we all have our biases.

a1na2
03-12-2008, 06:09 PM
But the Clinton Administration didn't try to axaggerate or lie about the intelligence in order to dishonestly railroad the country into an unjustified war (and an endless and costly occupation that may ultimately lead to our country's permanent loss of standing in the world).

That's a big difference, brother. One guy had the pragmatic sense to know better while the other guy was just a puppet.

Dude! The guy you are talking about basically did nothing after 4 major attacks on the U.S. or U.S. people. His inaction invited the attacks on 9/11. You can justify what he did and you can justify not going to Iraq with every fiber of your being, but the war in Iraq, even without the WMD's was justified.

On numerous occasions we were attacked while flying guard over the No-Fly zones. Each one of those attacks was an act of war. What part of that do you not get?

Also, there were Al Queda training camps in Iraq. Saddam might not have been complicit with those camps but if you don't believe that he knew about them you really need to research how he ran that country.

What you have to ask yourself is what would have happened should Bill Clinton have been president when the events of 9/11 came about. In my experience with Anti-Terrorism after 9/11 the U.S. uncovered valid threats against the country where AQ wanted to kill 1,000,000 Americans in one single attack. With no action (should Clinton have been in office and held the pragmatic sense you speak of), and continuation into Iraq it is very likely that we could have been attacked with that plan.

I think the war is overdone. I believe that we need to be out of that country, but I do not feel that the war was unjust by any stretch of the imagination.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 07:18 PM
The number makes absolutely no difference. If you get something wrong because you relied in good faith on faulty information, you aren't lying, you're just wrong. There is no line.

If you knew that you were wrong based on the information you had when you said something, it doesn't matter if somehow you miraculously turn out to be right on the money, you still lied.

This isn't rocket science.

The only reason finding "1" makes any difference at all is because it proves you and others like you wrong every time you try to say that we didn't find any WMD in Iraq. Up until today, you were apparently under the mistaken impression that Saddam having old WMD didn't matter to us at all so you weren't lying when you said we hadn't found any (of the relevant WMD), you were just mistaken.


So if we had found zero, not a trace, it would be lying? Or would it be misinformed, seeing as they relied on "faulty intelligence"? And when does "faulty intelligence" become a lie?

banyon
03-12-2008, 07:20 PM
I guess we all have our biases.

Well at the least they sure did.

a1na2
03-12-2008, 07:25 PM
So if we had found zero, not a trace, it would be lying? Or would it be misinformed, seeing as they relied on "faulty intelligence"? And when does "faulty intelligence" become a lie?

On numerous occasions we were attacked while flying guard over the No-Fly zones. Each one of those attacks was an act of war. What part of that do you not get?

We had plenty of reason to go to war, even if you completely disregarded the fact that Al Queda had training camps in Iraq.

irishjayhawk
03-12-2008, 07:42 PM
We had plenty of reason to go to war, even if you completely disregarded the fact that Al Queda had training camps in Iraq.

This implys I agree with our policy of enforcing no-fly zones. Seriously, wtf. Do the Russians patrol our "no-fly zones"? What if they did?

Stupid example.

a1na2
03-12-2008, 08:47 PM
This implys I agree with our policy of enforcing no-fly zones. Seriously, wtf. Do the Russians patrol our "no-fly zones"? What if they did?

Stupid example.

You were doing good until the last part. Why go there?

I am not aware of the Russians participating in the no-fly zones. If they were flying under the UN imposed no-fly zones they were supposed to be on our side. We were not restricted as to where we could fly, only the Iraqi's. I would have to talk to some friends still involved with the military to find out what the tensions are now like. After the Soviet Union fell the U.S. Military and Russian Military were more amiable towards each other. I was even invited onboard one of their Kara Class Cruisers.

In any case, I don't believe that the proximity of U.S. and Russian aircraft is as pertinent now as it once was. There are still times when each push the limits of what they feel is proper.

The facts of the matter are that the no-fly zone after Desert Storm were violated and we were fired on during Clinton's time in office and he did nothing to end the transgressions. The blatant actions on Saddams part regarding the inspections were totally wrong. I'm sure that you have enough information about that to know what I'm saying, what you might not know is what happened during the delays in inspections and what the surveillance uncovered.

penchief
03-13-2008, 07:01 AM
Dude! The guy you are talking about basically did nothing after 4 major attacks on the U.S. or U.S. people. His inaction invited the attacks on 9/11. You can justify what he did and you can justify not going to Iraq with every fiber of your being, but the war in Iraq, even without the WMD's was justified.

On numerous occasions we were attacked while flying guard over the No-Fly zones. Each one of those attacks was an act of war. What part of that do you not get?

Also, there were Al Queda training camps in Iraq. Saddam might not have been complicit with those camps but if you don't believe that he knew about them you really need to research how he ran that country.

What you have to ask yourself is what would have happened should Bill Clinton have been president when the events of 9/11 came about. In my experience with Anti-Terrorism after 9/11 the U.S. uncovered valid threats against the country where AQ wanted to kill 1,000,000 Americans in one single attack. With no action (should Clinton have been in office and held the pragmatic sense you speak of), and continuation into Iraq it is very likely that we could have been attacked with that plan.

I think the war is overdone. I believe that we need to be out of that country, but I do not feel that the war was unjust by any stretch of the imagination.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Let's not forget on who's watch 9/11 happened.

There were no connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda. In fact Saddam was the anti al-Qaeda in the Middle East. It amazes me that some of you still try to peddle such garbage.

It was Bush who didn't take al-Qaeda seriously. In fact, they had a good laugh at Clinton's expense when the Clinton Administration tried to tell Bush that al-Qaeda would the biggest security threat they would be facing. Why? Was it because they already had their sights set on Iraq?

Bush's indifference allowed 9/11 happen. Stop trying to blame everything on Clinton. Bush dragged this country into an endless occupation in Iraq on purpose. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still plotting against us and Bush has pretty much said he doesn't care.

We're in Iraq for the oil. If the true reason were the no-fly zones why didn't the Administration use that as the justification to begin with? Maybe because they knew that excuse was not enough to justify what they wanted to do?

dirk digler
03-13-2008, 07:14 AM
I do find this interesting. I wonder why they changed their plans to not post this on the Internet. Hopefully they will actually mail these out.

<!-- story_image.comp -->
(http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/03/10/19/678-10web-USIRAQ-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg) Stephanie Sinclair / Chicago Tribune
<!-- story_feature_box.comp --><!-- /story_feature_box.comp -->
<!-- /story_image.comp --> WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network.
<!-- story_videobox.comp --><!-- /story_videobox.comp --> Rather than posting the report online and making officials available to discuss it, as had been planned, the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it would mail copies of the document to reporters — if they asked for it. The report won't be posted on the Internet.

The reversal highlighted the politically sensitive nature of its conclusions, which were first reported Monday by McClatchy.

<!-- story_factbox.comp --> <!-- /story_factbox.comp --> In making their case for invading Iraq in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and his top national security aides claimed that Saddam's regime had ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

But the study, based on more than 600,000 captured documents, including audio and video files, found that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link.

The study comes at a difficult time for the Bush administration. The fifth anniversary of the Iraq war is approaching on March 19, and Bush is attempting to hold support for a continued large U.S. troop presence there following a report from his on-the-ground commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus, in early April.

Navy Capt. Dennis Moynihan, a spokesman for the Norfolk, Va.-based Joint Forces Command, said, "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Moynihan declined further comment.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, referred questions to Joint Forces Command.

An executive summary of the study says that Saddam's regime had interaction with terrorist groups, including Palestinian terror organizations and some pan-Islamic groups.

But "the predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq," says the summary, posted online by ABC News.

That confirms what many experts on Saddam's Iraq have long argued: that his security services were dedicated mainly to fighting threats to his rule.
The summary says that Saddam's secular regime increased cooperation with — and attempts to manipulate — Islamic fundamentalists after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, despite being leery of the Islamists. Iraqi leaders "concluded that in some cases, the benefits of associations outweighed the risks," it says.

Radar Chief
03-13-2008, 07:34 AM
What I find even more interesting is the release of editorialized bits and pieces of this report. I mean, why does the opposition feel the need to jump in front of this report and attempt to color it a certain way? What are they afraid of? That the report may not lead to the conclusions they want?

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:29 AM
Well at the least they sure did.

I'm sure you believe that even if it's a product of your bias.

I give you credit for at least focusing on the real crux of the matter when it comes to whether or not the administration lied us into war. Whether or not we actually found WMD isn't very relevant. But if they didn't actually have a good faith belief in the information they based their statements on then it would be reasonable to conclude that their statements were lies. To date, I have yet to see anyone make a convincing case that they lacked this good faith belief. I can't prove they acted in good faith, but until someone can show that they didn't, it's unfair to say that they lied.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:35 AM
So if we had found zero, not a trace, it would be lying? Or would it be misinformed, seeing as they relied on "faulty intelligence"? And when does "faulty intelligence" become a lie?

Please stop. Unless you and I are speaking different languages here, I've answered this question two or three times in this thread already. You're a college educated person, albeit at an subpar institution (I'm assuming you're a KU guy). You should be able to understand that "the number makes absolutely no difference" includes all numbers including zero.

Faulty intelligence never becomes a lie unless you believe it to be false but use it as if it were true.

irishjayhawk
03-13-2008, 06:48 PM
Please stop. Unless you and I are speaking different languages here, I've answered this question two or three times in this thread already. You're a college educated person, albeit at an subpar institution (I'm assuming you're a KU guy). You should be able to understand that "the number makes absolutely no difference" includes all numbers including zero.

Faulty intelligence never becomes a lie unless you believe it to be false but use it as if it were true.

Okay, you've finally admitted what I've thought all along. Even if we didn't find a single WMD in Iraq, it wouldn't have been a lie but "faulty intelligence".

Okay, then I don't think there can be any lies.


Clinton must have had "faulty intelligence" when he was on the stand. ;)

dirk digler
03-13-2008, 07:29 PM
What I find even more interesting is the release of editorialized bits and pieces of this report. I mean, why does the opposition feel the need to jump in front of this report and attempt to color it a certain way? What are they afraid of? That the report may not lead to the conclusions they want?

From the original article it appears someone with knowledge of the report wanted to leak the information. The Bush administration sure has alot of leaks.

But what is MORE interesting is the fact they are trying to play hide and seek with this report.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 08:22 AM
Okay, you've finally admitted what I've thought all along. Even if we didn't find a single WMD in Iraq, it wouldn't have been a lie but "faulty intelligence".

Okay, then I don't think there can be any lies.


Clinton must have had "faulty intelligence" when he was on the stand. ;)

You can't possibly have this much trouble understanding what constitutes a lie.

irishjayhawk
03-14-2008, 08:27 AM
You can't possibly have this much trouble understanding what constitutes a lie.

No, but I obviously think there's a line between "faulty intelligence" and a "lie for political gain". You think the line is very black white. I find the line very, very grey.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 08:31 AM
Faulty intelligence never becomes a lie unless you believe it to be false but use it as if it were true.
According to Michael Scheuer—that's exactly what the did. They fit the intel to their policy and were told to find something to pin on Iraq. He was there.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 09:41 AM
According to Michael Scheuer—that's exactly what the did. They fit the intel to their policy and were told to find something to pin on Iraq. He was there.

There are always going to be different opinions about what the wide range of conflicting and inconsistent pieces of raw intelligence means. Two people can, in good faith, come to two different conclusions about the same data. One or both of them may be wrong, but neither of them is lying.

Michael Scheuer was not involved in Iraq intelligence, he was focused rather narrowly on the bin Laden situation. Unlike a lot of CIA folks who end up rising through the ranks of the organization, Scheuer was a specialist and did not move from area to area like the generalists do. In short, he wasn't there.

a1na2
03-14-2008, 03:42 PM
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

If you want to believe that it's in your purview to do so. I've seen evidence that compels me to believe there was a connection.

Let's not forget on who's watch 9/11 happened.

Eight months into his administration there was little that Bush could do to anticipate that zealous idiots would hijack planes and fly them into buildings in the U.S.

There were no connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda. In fact Saddam was the anti al-Qaeda in the Middle East. It amazes me that some of you still try to peddle such garbage.

It was Bush who didn't take al-Qaeda seriously. In fact, they had a good laugh at Clinton's expense when the Clinton Administration tried to tell Bush that al-Qaeda would the biggest security threat they would be facing. Why? Was it because they already had their sights set on Iraq?

How in the world does it get past your intellect that we were attacked 4 times by Al Queda during Clintons' administration? His total disregard for the continuing threat was an open invitation for further attacks. 9/11 was being planned as early as 1994. I'm thinking that you are in denial about the Clinton involvement here. I'm sure that the new Administration sat down and laughed because of what was said. I need a link to confirm what you are telling me, it needs to be from a reliable source, not moveon.org.

Bush's indifference allowed 9/11 happen. Stop trying to blame everything on Clinton. Bush dragged this country into an endless occupation in Iraq on purpose. Meanwhile, bin Laden is still plotting against us and Bush has pretty much said he doesn't care.

Again, Bush did not have time to do much considering the attack was planned long before he came to office. The war in Iraq was and is justified due to the acts of war perpetuated by Saddam between 1991 and 2000.

We're in Iraq for the oil. If the true reason were the no-fly zones why didn't the Administration use that as the justification to begin with? Maybe because they knew that excuse was not enough to justify what they wanted to do?

Which part of the oil do you think that we are going to get? There is no way the U.S. would be gaining a foothold in the possession of the oil there. If you feel that is the case you are sadly mistaken.

You flaming liberals need to get a grip on what was going on there as well as what the repercussions will be if we don't end the war in a manner that will preserve the safety of the region. If we cut and run like both of your hero's want to (Obama and Hillary) the whole region will be destabilized and if you think oil prices are bad now just wait until that happens. Funny thing is that you are more worried about us stealing their oil than you are about having the world destabilized enough to possibly cause a world wide conflict.

penchief
03-15-2008, 06:44 AM
Funny thing is that you are more worried about us stealing their oil than you are about having the world destabilized enough to possibly cause a world wide conflict.

Puhhleeez.....this is pretty lame. We've contributed more to the destabilization of that region than anyone because of the actions we've taken. It has been this president who has brought us to the brink of worldwide conflict. It is this president who is making overtures about attacking Iran, as well.

I don't care about the oil over there, Haliburton and Exxon-Mobile do. I care about the instability that our actions have caused. And when oil is probably the primary reason for those actions, it is impossible to have the discussion without talking about oil.

You need to take one of those reality pills, or something. Or at least, stop trying to obfuscate that which is so obvious with silly statements like this one you just posted.

BucEyedPea
03-15-2008, 07:03 AM
There are always going to be different opinions about what the wide range of conflicting and inconsistent pieces of raw intelligence means. Two people can, in good faith, come to two different conclusions about the same data. One or both of them may be wrong, but neither of them is lying.
It's not an opinion. They either did it or they didn't. It's an inability to see the writing on the wall despite overwhelming evidence and multiple reports from inside the CIA.

Michael Scheuer was not involved in Iraq intelligence, he was focused rather narrowly on the bin Laden situation. Unlike a lot of CIA folks who end up rising through the ranks of the organization, Scheuer was a specialist and did not move from area to area like the generalists do. In short, he wasn't there.
Link?

patteeu
03-15-2008, 09:16 AM
It's not an opinion. They either did it or they didn't. It's an inability to see the writing on the wall despite overwhelming evidence and multiple reports from inside the CIA.

Of course it is. You obviously don't understand the nature of intelligence. Overwhelming opinion in the CIA was that Saddam was over a decade away from nuclear weapons when the first Gulf War occurred. It turned out that he was 1-2 years away which was consistent with a small minority of analysts within the intelligence apparatus (including a group within the Pentagon under Dick Cheney).

Link?

It's in his book, Imperial Hubris. You should read it sometime. You may not like everything you find out about Scheuer though. He's definitely a mixed bag.

a1na2
03-15-2008, 01:37 PM
Puhhleeez.....this is pretty lame. We've contributed more to the destabilization of that region than anyone because of the actions we've taken. It has been this president who has brought us to the brink of worldwide conflict. It is this president who is making overtures about attacking Iran, as well.

I don't care about the oil over there, Haliburton and Exxon-Mobile do. I care about the instability that our actions have caused. And when oil is probably the primary reason for those actions, it is impossible to have the discussion without talking about oil.

You need to take one of those reality pills, or something. Or at least, stop trying to obfuscate that which is so obvious with silly statements like this one you just posted.

We are there to steal their oil. That's why we started the war. I'm positive that you are the one that needs to take a healthy dose of reality.

Prove that any of the statements I've made is false and while you are at it prove that Hailburton and Exxon-Mobile are behind the war in Iraq.

I'll wait for some kind of deflective answer. I'd rather have something of substance but you are not capable of going there.

penchief
03-15-2008, 04:15 PM
We are there to steal their oil. That's why we started the war. I'm positive that you are the one that needs to take a healthy dose of reality.

Prove that any of the statements I've made is false and while you are at it prove that Hailburton and Exxon-Mobile are behind the war in Iraq.

I'll wait for some kind of deflective answer. I'd rather have something of substance but you are not capable of going there.

I'll tell you what. Get me list of people that attended Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force Meetings and what was discussed and that will be a starting point. Until we have transparency from the Cheneyburton Administration we will never know the truth.

But the truth must not be important to you or else you would be clamoring for that information as much as I am.

a1na2
03-15-2008, 04:40 PM
I'll tell you what. Get me list of people that attended Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force Meetings and what was discussed and that will be a starting point. Until we have transparency from the Cheneyburton Administration we will never know the truth.

But the truth must not be important to you or else you would be clamoring for that information as much as I am.

You do know that Cheney divested himself from Haliburton when he became VP don't you?

I think you are participating in too much speculation for anyone's good.

Your version of truth is only something that is unfavorable to the administration, otherwise you would be clamoring for much more.

You are one ultra biased individual. Everyone knows that this administration is very much like others. They have done wrong and they have done right. Your focus on the wrong here only prompts me to wonder what you were doing during the Clinton years.

Why don't you get that list of names and meeting minutes? No contacts?

patteeu
03-16-2008, 10:50 AM
I'll tell you what. Get me list of people that attended Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force Meetings and what was discussed and that will be a starting point. Until we have transparency from the Cheneyburton Administration we will never know the truth.

But the truth must not be important to you or else you would be clamoring for that information as much as I am.

The law allows for the executive branch to have private deliberations within itself and to hold private interviews with outside experts. The Cheney Energy Task Force Meetings followed the law. If you don't like it, petition your democrat-controlled Congress to change the law.

penchief
03-16-2008, 12:25 PM
You do know that Cheney divested himself from Haliburton when he became VP don't you?

I think you are participating in too much speculation for anyone's good.

Your version of truth is only something that is unfavorable to the administration, otherwise you would be clamoring for much more.

You are one ultra biased individual. Everyone knows that this administration is very much like others. They have done wrong and they have done right. Your focus on the wrong here only prompts me to wonder what you were doing during the Clinton years.

Why don't you get that list of names and meeting minutes? No contacts?

It's not bias to demand transparency from your government. And when there is so much effort on Cheneyburton's part to conceal so much about that meeting (including who attended), I would think any freedom loving American would want to know what their motivations are (the motivations of their own representative government).

And considering that the boondoggle in Iraq has been a disaster for the people of this country (financially, securitywise, and energywise) while being a boon for the energy industry, one has to be either blind or biased to not want to know the truth. I mean, there is some real congnitive dissonance and denial going on here by a lot of people on the right when it comes to those meetings and our invasion of Iraq.

How would you feel or what would you think if you found out that invading Iraq was the major topic of discussion at those meetings and that the major players were Haliburton, Exxon-Mobile, and few of our closest business partners in the Middle East? Would that matter to you at all? Is it even possible in your mind? If so, don't you think that would be important enough to want to know the truth?

And since there is no good reason not to know the truth, the administration's stonewalling only adds to the suspicion that that is exactly what happened.