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]

Don't you get tired posting the same rhetoric?
You could at least try an put a little rhythm to it so it won't sound like the same old song an dance.

935 lies.....
I've never been impressed by anyone playing Monday morning quarterback.
Sure go ahead an look right past the fact every single one of those so called"935 lies" were legitimately based on the intel available at the time.


"Bush was hell bent on getting Saddam and nation building"
Maybe you should do a search for the 1998 liberation act.
Were Congress and Clinton signed into law a policy to overthrow Saddam, then try an put a democracy in place.
" It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Only difference here is Bush did something about it.


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.
Wow, that's a new one to me.
So I guess you did come up with a new one.
Guess you missed the 101 news stories about how the head of the CIA when asked how reliable the inte was he replied "It's a Slam Dunk"

It's nothing but disingenuous claptrap to imply Bush was the only one who was saying Iraq had WMD's. If so, then here's a question.
If according to you, everyone else knew there wasn't or had doubts.
Then why did the majority of the U.N. members on multiple occasions over 12 years vote to continue the very strict economic sanctions?
Those economic sanctions didn't really hurt Saddam as he was making his billions of the Oil for Food kickbacks. The only effect the sanctions had were they devastated the country any it's civilian population.
That point right there is why the U.N. is a complete waste and why I would like nothing more than see the U.S. completely pull out of it.
The U.N. is a paper tiger that has done very little good in the world.
Economic sanctions would probably have the desired effect if used on a democratic nation.
If they government was doing something so bad it resulted in economic sanctions, then the government would be voted out. The problem is and what the U.N. didn't figure out after 12 years of messing around with Iraq is economic sanction don't mean jack when you're dealing with a ruthless dictatorships.

The idea of a permanent security council is a joke, it doesn't reflect the reality of today's world.
The USA pays for 22% of the U.N..'s regular budget, that's more than the other 4 permanent council members put together.
Even Canada puts in more money than Russia or Germany.


You can go on making this be about Bush and his personal war.
The real truth of the matter is ( right or wrong, that's a different argument )
Prior to 9-11, the world and the USA were content with only confining Saddam.
After 9-11, the USA was shocked into action based on fears of WMD's in Iraq being used against us in another attack.
You can argue all day about how misplaced or wrong that fear was at the time but doing so after the fact on information that wasn't available at the time is just as pointless as Monday morning quarterbacking.

[Hellfighter]

[color="#ffcc00"][/color]
Wow, that's a new one to me.
So I guess you did come up with a new one.
Guess you missed the 101 news stories about how the head of the CIA when asked how reliable the inte was he replied "It's a Slam Dunk"

Then live and learn - I didn't just listen to 101 news stories, I was watching interviews with personnel/staff on the inside who had first hand accounts of what was going on. In fact you just killed your own point "Slam dunk" what does that mean - it means if one can't show the proof of that 100% irrefutable' slam dunk then there's a lie right there for you from someone who now's the truth of it.
CIA not regarding their reports as 'irrefuable evidence' as claimed by Bush in his UN speech is no big secret so I'm not sure why you're surprised. Again, I saw interviews with those in the know who said Bush upped the ante on the reports; all I can give are written reports on the topic which I intend as informative rather than argumentative.
http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-32079.html
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001518.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112005X.shtml

Clearly you're missing the whole point of my dispute regarding the continuous meandering into what I consider sidetracking off topic.
Once again the same 'rhetoric' since you insist on challenging my past arguments with 'repeated' inconsequential facts regarding the topic at hand as far as I see. This time I'll add what I've made clear in past threads regarding my overall point of view - in case you're unaware.

-I'm not a Dem apologist -so pointlessly chirp away all you like about 'yeah well dems said this 500 years ago'. Start a thread about Dems responsible for starting the war and see if I even make one post in there.
-I was for the war when it was insisted upon by Bush admin based on what I assessed from the info he gave out as fact. Info that HE/admin Cheney knew they were distorting -> nobody else but the CIA knew and admin knew.
-Why do Canucks care anyway regarding War on Terror decisions - you maybe thinking too >-this episode affects us all over the world in many ways you probably haven't thought off [ ie, 9-11; in NY my sis was in a subway train passing by towers just earlier than strike took place]- and on the Canuck side; although your news media doesn't report these things, the Canadian contingent are taking a high proportion of motral casualties in the fight against the Taliban on a regular basis -no I'm not fighting there but the debate on our presence there could affect which govt. we choose in our next elections.
-I took alot of flack up here for voicing my support for the unilateral decision to go to war. My concern was based on the world not taken action on what was considered an 'imminent threat' - just like growing aggressive fascism was not countered in the 1930s despite warnings by key poiltical figures of that time
[ so if you want to call those who dig deeply into why the world let fascism get a free pass, and then dismiss their analysis as monday morning quarter-backing, I suggest that's the mentality that dooms humans to keep repeating the same tragic avoidable errors over and over].
-I was still for the war seeing the rapid military strike to Bahgdad -and so were some of my Iraqi friends and the Iraqi citizens. Rumsfeld made a good strategy for what it achieved.
Then unlike the neo-con Bushy admin war supporters - the scam unravelled;
The war was unravelling as ill-conceived
- there was no interim US- propped Iraqi government ready to move in/ the military strategy was flawed
- as many silenced and fired Generals feared- the quick strike should've instead been a Colin Powell type overkill campaign [quarterbacking criticism yes- but others would say gathering the facts so that next time a better decision is made].
- Rumsfeld scoffing at signs of insecurity at the outset.
-where am I pointing as Bush being 'the only one as disingenuous' that's your assertion. I'm only saying Bush pushed the button for the war prematurely. Yet others want to make this a partisan thread and think I really get offended when dems this n' that get brought up - I'm only baffled as to why in actuality and as to why UN budgets are brought up -as if I think the UN are demi-gods. I have alot of criticism for them too but what's that got to do with the topic excepet for Bush deliberately going alone without UN backing.
Whoever they are I like good. fair leaders.
I liked George Bush senior as a prez - and Jeb Bush sounded like a rock star too as a politician -as an example


The point of the topic is were there lies. Not about quarter-backing.
Look at it this way;
Karate was developed in Japan. The way you and others argue here is like saying 'no no - it comes from North Africa' then you get into facts supporting your case;
Egyptians practised a wrestling style which the invading Greeks adopted and then they spread this to India where the Indians modified that to their own martial arts. An Indian Budhist monk skilled in that martial art brought it to China where from him kung fu was born and kung fu practitioners from there went to Japan where all the Japanese martial art styles took their root -including Karate.
If that sounded long-winded then you now see my point;>>> Karate was 'invented' in Japan.
Your facts I don't dispute for the most part -trust me- its your arguments using those facts.
You drag them out pointelessly. Dems, repubs, me, other war supporters were gullable- idiotically or naively is another matter.
Call it quarter backing all day if you like and make up all the excuses you want to divert from why the Bush admin lied, but it changes nothing regarding the facts;
- he had no SOLID proof of imminent danger -> no missiles on countdown to strike, no specific locations WMD caches, no threats made to use WMDs imminently. This is the topic-who pushed the button on the war and why was it done deceitfully.What some people intend to do is vastly different from what one actually carries out and for what reason.
So if you want to to add 'don't you get tired of' as a concealed way of suggesting delusional, I'll only say 'nope'.
I'll keep posting away happily in the hopes of bringing an education to those who prefer to go off topic in a debate. People die needlessly when we have leaders in power infected with the idea->
"All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". ->bald faced-lying by neocons included.

geezus, doesn't this thread get to page 2


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 02/02/08 1:17pm