Study-War of Diversion;Iraq, We knew theirs was deception- but just not how much. Options

[Hellfighter]

Here's an intro to probably the most definitive study that combs through just how badly the admin steered the masses into going to War in Iraq with no foundation whatsoever.... as in no immediate or direct threat.
It appears I'm rehashing the obvious, but I'm surprised at the extent of the deception when its assessed in totality.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 01/23/08 3:22pm

[Robert]

Everyone talks about what a dummy Bush is but apparently he is genius.
1) He was able to pull off secretly manipulating over a dozen intelligence agencies without leaving a single piece of evidence.
2) Was able to manipulate intelligence agencies of several other countries.
3) 2 years before even becoming president he was able to force the then current president and several members of congress especially those who sat on the intelligence sub-committees to begin laying the ground work for a case of WMD's in IRAQ.
4) Also while only the governor of Texas, was secretly in control of IRAQ to the point that Saddam would never fully allow the inspectors access.
5) Able to make 935 statements, where not a single statement could latter be shown to have been KNOWINGLY made contrary to the information he had at the time the statement was made.

A summary
Bush was the only one saying IRAQ had WMD's
Well that's not really true is it, People where saying that years before he even became president.
The vast majority of Intelligence reports at the time stated IRAQ had Chem/Bio and COULD have 1 or 2 Nuclear weapons within 12-24 months AFTER getting enough weapons grade material.

Bush forced the Intel agencies to say that.
Nope, I won't bother coping the post here but is you want to see why that's been debunked it's #8 on my
post here
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...st&p=170138
or if you want you can read the report from the senate sub-committee which investigated if Bush or anyone in his administration coerced any intel agency
http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf
If you don't want to read all 500 pages, that was a big fat NO.


But France Said
Short answer.
Who Gives a shit?
Long Answer.
I'm not surprised France would say that when you take into consideration they were #2 on the list of countries that received the most illicit money from the roughly 5 BILLION missing from the oil for food program. I'm sure it's just coincidence that Russia,the county which received the most illegal money from the oil for food program, was the other very outspoke member of the UN security counsel about military action.
Do I even need to mention that France was the biggest financial loser when the U.S. invaded Iraq, largely in part to billions of dollars in weapons that France sold to them on credit.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/03/07/edlauren_ed3_.php


Iraq was complying with weapon inspectors, we should have given them time to do their job before rushing to war.
Yea okay, that is if you want to ignore the 1st 12 years and 1st 14 UN resolutions.
You can't count on both hands the number of times Saddam started to comply with weapon inspectors only to do a 180 when the heat was off.
I guess according to the people complaining about how the weapons inspectors were getting access, we should have been willing to give Saddam endless chances to comply, halfway, for a little while, until ha changed his mind AGAIN.

Ex-Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter said there were no WMD's
True he did say that after the fact.
What else did he say.
While involved with the UN inspection team.
1998 - Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months."
later in 1998 - said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."
4 years later, with no new information, no involvement or even any weapon inspections done during that time, he becomes one of the most outspoken critics saying "he knew Iraq didn't have any WMD's"


I'll be happy to answer anything else you have.

This post has been edited by Robert: 01/30/08 8:36pm

[Hellfighter]

a].....
1) He was able to pull off secretly manipulating over a dozen intelligence agencies without leaving a single piece of evidence
.
b]......
2) Was able to manipulate intelligence agencies of several other countries.

c]......
3) 2 years before even becoming president he was able to force the then current president and several members of congress especially those who sat on the intelligence sub-committees to begin laying the ground work for a case of WMD's in IRAQ.

d]......
4) Also while only the governor of Texas, was secretly in control of IRAQ to the point that Saddam would never fully allow the inspectors access.

e].....
5) Able to make 935 statements, where not a single statement could latter be shown to have been KNOWINGLY made contrary to the information he had at the time the statement was made.

--------------------------

f]....
Bush forced the Intel agencies to say that.
Nope, I won't bother coping the post here but is you want to see why that's been debunked it's #8 on my
post here
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...st&p=170138
or if you want you can read the report from the senate sub-committee which investigated if Bush or anyone in his administration coerced any intel agency
http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf
If you don't want to read all 500 pages, that was a big fat NO.

g].....
Iraq was complying with weapon inspectors, we should have given them time to do their job before rushing to war.
Yea okay, that is if you want to ignore the 1st 12 years and 1st 14 UN resolutions.
You can't count on both hands the number of times Saddam started to comply with weapon inspectors only to do a 180 when the heat was off.
I guess according to the people complaining about how the weapons inspectors were getting access, we should have been willing to give Saddam endless chances to comply, halfway, for a little while, until ha changed his mind AGAIN.


I'll be happy to answer anything else you have.

a] Blair was loyal to the bitter end -even he was backtracking on what he said his intel was telling him regarding yellowcake 'stories' regarding Niger/Iraq

b]I don't see where that claim was made...

c]No harm in gathering reports - it's the twisting of them for twisted schemes is the problem.

d] The Inspector issue regards their access in the short time before the war started.

e] The CIA were mystified why Bush would take their inconclusive reports and make them seem fact in his UN speech. He deliberately upped the ante. He lied to make his pitch knowingly.

f] I agree - no forcing, but he twisted the reports and Cheney and gang were snuffing opposition- cia agent/Generals as they started their scheme rolling. Intimidation was at play.

g] inspections were proceeding.... what was the reason to rush into war/make the 48 hour get out of Dodge City ultimatum -was there proof of weapons being dismantled or moved or hidden to make that decision at that moment.

Hey Robert is this the longest 1 page you've ever seen in a thread here -its pretty long
-and longer if Mr.Rocket gets round to shortening his sig


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 01/30/08 9:43pm