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]

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.

You just repeated the same point I have been trying to make all along.
You're the one who implies that Bush KNOWINGLY mislead America and everyone else into war with Iraq.
Same as you're the one who brought up the that the CIA didn't agree with Bush.
Which really wasn't the case now was it?
When the director of the CIA was asked how reliable the intel was, he said it was a slam dunk.
Now you want to split hairs about the 100 possible meanings of "slam dunk".
That doesn't pass the smell test, I have no doubt if you randomly asked 100 people what that mean, 90+ would say it implied a sure thing.
Feel free to be in the slim majority who says it means something else if you think it backs your point.

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.

Care to show me where in Bush's UN speech that he said the US had "irrefutable evidence".
I just read a copy of Bush's UN speech and I can't find it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2254712.stm
So please point it out to me.
I did find the 3 links you supplied very humorous.
The funniest one would have to be truthout, since their other big news story was about Cindy Sheehan releasing her Book.
I don't think you could find a more biased editorial website than on truthout if you tried, expect of course for moveon.org

I'm going to guess you actually meant Bush's State of the Union Address were you said his speech to the UN
Which by the way would still be wrong as the "irrefutable evidence" quote isn't from Bush, it's from Cheney.
Back to Bush and the State of Union Address, there have been several editorials written about his remarks regarding the Iraq, Niger uranium connection.
They always cite how people in the CIA were surprised Bush mentioned Niger Uranium story.
What they purposefully always forget to mention is
1) Bush didn't make that claim, he only stated what the British intelligence said, which is why he said in his speech " British intelligence reports"
2) When the CIA initially put the Niger uranium information in their report, they broke their own rules. According to CIA's own directives, the report should have been listed as
"unsubstantiated" until the CIA could either independently confirm or refute the report, which they did not do.
3) Prior to giving the State of the Union Address, a copy of it was given to the CIA for fact checking purposes. How incredibly dishonest is it that some people in the CIA after the fact, now come out to accuse Bush of using the unconfirmed report to mislead America into war when the fact is their own organization not only had the ability to remove or question the statement prior to the speech but were also the same organization which violated their own directives when they listed the Niger uranium report in their daily briefing to the president.
See this is what my problem is, even after reading those 3 points which directly refute your point concerning the Bush claim to "irrefutable evidence"
Some people will still reply.
Bush Lied.

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;

Care to explain just exactly what the "scam" was?
Let me guess, Bush did it to steal the oil.

there was no interim US- propped Iraqi government ready to move in, the military strategy was flawed.

You're correct on that point, care to expand on the reasons WHY there was no interim government to take the place of Saddam?
You may or may not agree with me but here are my two reasons why there was no interim government to step in.
1) Saddam wasn't called the butcher of Baghdad for no reason.
2) Dozens of opposition leaders were killed right after the 1st Gulf War because they were mislead by the UN and US that they could expect support.
Once Saddam pulled out of Kuwait, the opposition leaders were left hanging and were quickly killed by Saddam.
In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes made was the World at large not having the guts or foresight to completely remove Saddam in 1991.

You talk about how history repeats itself. I personally see several similarities between this and Germany from WW1

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.

I though it was fair since you bring up it being Bush's fault in every post.
Bush Lied
Bush Mislead
Bush did this
Bush did that.
My point from the beginning is that it had more to do with wide spread intelligence failures on several different levels.
You implied Bush coerced the intel agencies, so I pointed out a bipartisan senate subcommittee looked into that and found no evidence of any coercion by Bush or members of his administration.

The dem stuff gets brought up because it's a large factor in the discussion to people down here.
It's also a legitimate reply to all the accusations that Bush did this on his own.



To me it's pretty simply.
People can argue all day, the finger pointing done to politicized one event or another.
What does that get anyone in the end. Nothing
The only reason I bothered to respond at all was the unsubstantiated Bush bashing, it gets old and does nothing but obscure the real issues and problems.
It's Bush's War, Bush was Wrong, It's Bush's fault
That over simplified crap only detracts from the real reason of what and why America did what it did.
Did America screw up invading Iraq? I'm sure for you it's probably a huge YES!.
I debate that question with myself all the time. There are huge problems with the war but I'm still hopeful that at some point democracy will take some small foothold.
If it does, then there is a real chance that small initial democracy could chance the face of the middle east in a ways I think most people would find favorable .

There are two undeniable truths
1) Now that we're there, why were there isn't near as important as what are we going to do.
Every politician talks about how they are going to get out of Iraq. Even though I dislike McCain, right now he is the only one honest about what needs to be done.
Any arbitrary date or time line for withdraw would be self fulfilling prophesy for disaster, bad for the US, even worse for Iraq
At this time, the focus should be how to get the job done an realizing there will be no quick fix.
2) The US soldiers on the ground are not there to indiscriminately kill, rape and pillage. They are there trying to keep the peace and play referee/mediator while
opposing factions within Iraq are doing their best to kill each other. At the heart of what the soldiers are doing, they do for Iraq not the US.

[Hellfighter]

'Robert' date='02/02/08 9:56pm' post='170567'
You're the one who implies that Bush KNOWINGLY mislead America and everyone else into war with Iraq.
Same as you're the one who brought up the that the CIA didn't agree with Bush.
Which really wasn't the case now was it?

Yes I did imply that and stand by it -it's slamdunk to me.


When the director of the CIA was asked how reliable the intel was, he said it was a slam dunk.

I can only tell you what I heard in two interviews [one with the hubby of the cia agent whose undercover identity was let out by cheney gang to the press] on tv with those in the CIA/circle who gave Bush admin the report and said that's not we said not too long before his speech and then heard him 'up the context' to their surprise - their report-not brits intel. If you saw these interviews there'd be no dispute.


Feel free to be in the slim majority who says it means something else if you think it backs your point.
Just about 80% Americans slam dunk believing the point



I'm going to guess you actually meant Bush's State of the Union Address were you said his speech to the UN

Yes you're correct of course.
Actually I threw in the forum link to show both sides of the 'debate'.
Bush did repeat Cheney's exagerrated claim however; I did for a while want to believe Bush was being manipulated by Cheney but the repetitiveness of his claims led me to see otherwise.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...5_11/007556.php




Care to explain just exactly what the "scam" was?
Let me guess, Bush did it to steal the oil.

Nope I'm not in that train of thought. I'm more looking at the neo-con 'tightening geographical stranglehold around Iran' train of thought. Sadam was an easy target- every other arab nation hated him... and before there was any hint of an upcoming war, I wasn't suspicious, but I found it odd all the AA defences of Iraq were being taken out seemingly to me with a zeal rather than protection of airforce covering the no-fly zones- once again that was just my thoughts at the time- even with my full support for the no-fly zone policy.



-there was no interim US- propped Iraqi government ready to move in, the military strategy was flawed.-

You're correct on that point, care to expand on the reasons WHY there was no interim government to take the place of Saddam?

My belief at the time was that the Bush admin said they had Iraqi exiles and dissidents of influence ready to move in after the Bathists were ousted - I was glad to see sadams goons sent running, but once they were gone- nobody stepped in as was asserted- worse was amidst the looting nd anarchy in Baghdad after it fell, Rumsfeld chuckled in news interviews claiming there were no problems at all when questioned about who was in charge of keeping order. And then the terrorists moved in like sharks.....


In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes made was the World at large not having the guts or foresight to completely remove Saddam in 1991.

I agree, but I see why the Bush sr. calculated not to do so... the same power vacuum that we have now, would've occurred back then most likely. Plus what was a pretty squeaky clean war militarily and diplomatically would've lost its lustre and may have instilled resentment if the West was seen as occupiers of an arab state - like I said I'm just pointing out the possible reasons. then there was Iran to consider with such a power vacuum.


You talk about how history repeats itself. I personally see several similarities between this and Germany from WW1
I didn't see that aspect initially, but that's very true too.




You implied Bush coerced the intel agencies
Maybe I should've been more clearer - I think the neo-con admin manipulated reports of the intel... not coerced the personnel -> but shady payback tactics vs. those rocking the boat too much - definately imo


People can argue all day, the finger pointing done to politicized one event or another.
What does that get anyone in the end. Nothing

I differ on that - the more awareness of voters awareness of manipulation by leaders the more chances hopefully we/the leaders don't repeat the same sequence of events and get into another mess without a united front based on a common belief and s solid back up plan coveringall likely eventualities -and wisely listening to the Generals input. But then again you could be right.... recalling all the Dems in the Senate gave thumbs up for Bush to into Iran at his whim - then the NIE reports showed up revealing the known situation. don't get me wrong I'm firmly in the belief Iran and N.Korea want nukes at some point and will do so when their opprtunity arrives.


That over simplified crap only detracts from the real reason of what and why America did what it did.


We differ there too -imo, its not over-simplified at all -were it so, these posts would not be biblical length


Did America screw up invading Iraq? I'm sure for you it's probably a huge YES!.

I kind of disagree there - my Iraqi friends / n me and many newly dubious thinkers, were in the hope at the time all would turn out well given the hard fought but thunderbolt attack of the coalition in reaching Bahgdad. Everything was there for a very good outcome. I'm perhaps more bitter that the admin snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and years of needless suffering in that region and then elsewhere in the world spewed out- not to mention giving the Talibums and Bum Laden the opportunity to recover.

The US soldiers on the ground are not there to indiscriminately kill, rape and pillage. They are there trying to keep the peace and play referee/mediator while
opposing factions within Iraq are doing their best to kill each other. At the heart of what the soldiers are doing, they do for Iraq not the US.
It's always been my opinion Coalition troops have their hearts in wanting to see Iraqis enjoy democracy and as professionals aren't over there debating should/shouldn'ts of politics. My point in these threads relate to the goings-on of the Bush admin from the insight I catch here and there - I have my reasons and its not about getting on a bash Bush bandwagon for its own sake.

LOL, are we on page 2 yet !


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 02/03/08 2:03am