 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:50 AM Now James "Peanut" Carter was someone Bobert said he voted for. Bobert also reckoned that Carter was one of the best Presidents the US ever had. OK Bobert you were asked a question. Tell us what the "Carter Doctrine" was? Another question that both Bobert and Barry ducked. What was the aim of the Iraq Bill that one William Jefferson Clinton Introduced and had passed? Iraq a mistake Bobert - HELL NO!! Carter succeeded in only one thing - In making the US a laughing stock. He also seriously damaged the capability for the US to gather meaningful intelligence in one of the most crucial areas of the planet - The Middle-East. Clinton although constantly warned of the dangers elected to bury his head in the sand and win popularity contests instead of looking to the security of the United States of America. His reluctance to act resulted in five major attacks. Bush did act and to date America has not been successfully attacked once since 9/11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:19 AM The Carter Doctrine does not apply to Iraq, Teribus; it was limited to preventing outside interference, notably by the USSR, in US interests relating to Saudi Arabia, foremost, and secondarily the rest of the Persian Gulf region. It cannot be used as a justification for unilateral invasion absent a precipitating offensive move on the part of another country. It was the Reagan corollary that extended it to internal matters, which is surely what the Iraq invasion was about. This shifted the Carter doctrine and placed the self-anointed mantle of "arbitrary police of other nations" on the shoulders of America, wanted or not. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:46 AM "outside interference" covers a multitude of sins Amos (think nuclear) and is not only restricted to a physical presence or invasion. Cornerstone of US policy in the gulf region has always been that no single country in the region shall be permitted to exercise hegemony over the area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 01:41 PM The only thing thing that I seem to know nuthin' about are the following ******* BOBERT FACTS ******: Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 02:49 PM Close your eyes Bobert, stick your fingers in your ears and say "I'm Not Listening" Myths of Iraq During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines. No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress. I left Baghdad more optimistic than I was before this visit. While cynicism, political bias and the pressure of a 24/7 news cycle accelerate a race to the bottom in reporting, there are good reasons to be soberly hopeful about Iraq's future. Much could still go wrong. The Arab genius for failure could still spoil everything. We've made grave mistakes. Still, it's difficult to understand how any first-hand observer could declare that Iraq's been irrevocably "lost." Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media: Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary. Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance. Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists. Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned. The appeal of the religious militias. They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen. The failure of the Iraqi army. Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success. Reconstruction efforts have failed. Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope. The electricity system is worse than before the war. Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus. Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women's rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues. Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror. But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful. The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines. To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other "boys" might lie and steal, our house-boy's a faithful servant. The result is that we're being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what's actually happening. While there are and have been any number of courageous, ethical journalists reporting from Iraq, others know little more of the reality of the streets than you do. They report what they are told by others, not what they have seen themselves. The result is a distorted, unfair and disheartening picture of a country struggling to rise above its miserable history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Lighter Date: 03 Mar 09 - 03:56 PM Sawzaw, simply as a point of information: the results of a public opinion poll, no matter how scrupulously conducted, say nothing about what the actual likelihood of success or failure (however these are defined) may be. The poll only measures the level of confidence of the respondents. But I doubt they have much expertise or any first-hand knowledge. And what might be "success" for one person (say, "a stable, neutral Iraq") might well be "failure" for someone else (who, for example, might demand "a stable, democratic, U.S.-aligned Iraq"). Opinion polls measure opinions and little else, and they don't always do that very well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM Lighter: That is your opinion, I presume, that carries more or less weight than the poll? Amos: You are right. Saddam was not exactly an outside force. But I think it sets the stage (gives an excuse) for military intervention in the middle east. Carter proclaimed: The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil. This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened. Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region. Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 09 - 05:43 PM Sawz: Fromt he smell, I would guess your recent cut-and-paste was several years old, no? WHy not provide source information yourself? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM Yo, Sawz... Apparent;y you don't read all my posts 'casue it's been at least a month since I corrected the gifts that we given to Saddam... Maybe you could tell us what those gifts were, por favor??? Also, who presented these gifts, por favor??? And maybe if you quit you friggin' shouting you'd have more tiem for keeping up with these threads... (Nah, Boberdz... He wouldn't... And shouting is all he really knows...) Sad... B! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 09 - 06:40 PM Oh, BTW... How about doing it in yer own words... Yer lenghthy cut and posts from rightie blogs is rather ingenious so I don't ven read them... Nor do other folks here... It may make you feel smugly warm and fuzzy but if no one reads yer rightie blogs then you have done a disservice to your argument/s... And T, Amos is ebntirely correct... The Carter Docrine had nothin' to do with Bush and Co.'s (you incvluded) trumped up excuses for his trumped up war.... Had common logic prevailed Bush would have backed down after the Jan 27th report to the UN by Blix... But cowboys and common logic don't exactly mix too well... "Cowboys ain'y easy to love and they're hearder to hold They rather give you a song than diomonds of gold Thems that don't know him won't like him And those that do won't know how to take him But there's something That's won't let him do things that is right..." B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 Mar 09 - 08:08 PM "Bush did act and to date America has not been successfully attacked once since 9/11" Gawd I love that one. So, Bush gets a pass on 911 - even though he had been in office for nine months...even though the outgoing administration implored him to pay attention to Al Qaeda (while he crowed about missile defense shield)...But *after* 911, we haven't been attacked. Well, for the nine prior years we had not been attacked either! Bush kept us safe *after* 911... "Other than that how was the play Mrs. Lincoln". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 09 - 08:42 PM Wait a minute!!! Seems to me that the two worst terrorist attacks have occured under Republican presdients... Beruit under Reagan and... ...9/11 under Bush??? Hmmmmmmm??? And exactly how is it that the US is safer from terrorists under the Repubs??? Yeah, TIA... Like, what kinda revisonionists acid trip are the Bushites on here??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Lighter Date: 03 Mar 09 - 09:35 PM Well, since you ask, it is my opinion, based on experience, that few members of the general public chosen at random have a profound understanding of Iraq and Iraqi society. (I certainly don't.) Therefore their personal expectations of success or failure in Iraq(however defined) have little to do with what's actually happening or will happen. Especially if, as you say, the news media have been misleading them. What remains a fact, though, is that the majority opinion concerning something the opinion-givers don't know much about has little bearing on the actuality of that something. The Iraq War, in this case. All the poll does is count poorly-informed opinions on all sides. That remains true regardless of the subject of the poll and regardless of whether one likes its findings or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Mar 09 - 10:55 PM So Lighter, of public opinion is to be discaounted the your opinion should be discounted or not? CNN: "Do you think that the United States of America is winning or not winning the Iraq war?" Washington Post: "Thinking about the next year, do you feel optimistic or pessimistic about the situation in Iraq?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 09 - 11:07 PM So, Saawz: how will we know? The surreender of...um...who???? Or is there some other definition of "win" in your mind? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM Yer exactly right, lighter... And I offer into evidence Sawz post of 10:55 as "Exhibit A"... Face it, the wrong question was asked... This thread is about whether or not going into Iraq was a mistake and not about warm and fuzzy regergitation of what the media has been cramming down our throats since (drum roll) "The Surrrrrrrrgggggge"... Of course the American people really have no concept of waht the surge was... Most would say it simply was more boot on the ground which, of course, is an incorrect answer... But that answer, however incorrect, fits nicely into the revisionists bumnper sticker lenght policy positions... I mean, I even asked Sawz a whi,le back what the surge was and he listed a bunch of stuff that never really dealth with the facts on the ground and shift in tactics (not strategy) and perhaps why even to this day he is completely in the dark about what this thread is really about... Garbage in, garbage out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Lighter Date: 04 Mar 09 - 09:03 AM You're missing the point. Polling people who are poorly informed about X tells nothing about X itself, regardless of what X is. That's a fact that every professional pollster knows and, I suspect, many professional journalists too. The poll thing is a non-partisan observation that's true of any subject. I haven't expressed any opinion at all about the Iraq War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:24 AM Still no answer form Bobert on those *********BOBERT FACTS********* Yet he loves to call people liars. What happened to the offer you made Bobert? Are you backpedaling? Why would such a always correct person need to avoid doing what he said he would do? Lighter: You are missing the point. If opinions expressed by others is not accurate, what makes your opinion on polls accurate? The number indicates a change in opinions over the years. Did they get samrter or dumber over the years? What does the percentage of error mean? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:50 AM "I even asked Sawz a whi,le back what the surge was and he listed a bunch of stuff that never really dealth with the facts on the ground" You asked me about the surge and I directed you to the government website that laid it all out. Then you wanted to know how it was different from the existing strategy. I directed you to that too. I answered your question. Your problem, like the arrogant Bill O'Reilly, is that my answer is not the answer you wanted so you continue to bully and accuse me of not answering. I have politely agreed to appologize if you can show me where your alleged facts appeared in any of the three sources you cited. Now you ridicule and search for some flaw in what I said in an effort to excuse your self from doing what you said you would do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:51 AM "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully." -- Former Deputy Attorney General John Yoo, in a 2001 Justice Department memo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 09 - 12:20 PM This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune — often the surfeits of our own behavior — we make guilty of our own disasters, the sun, the moon, and the stars." Lear |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 04 Mar 09 - 01:06 PM That should read "Floppery" Amos. You only "touch the tip" Amos when you mention "First Amendment speech and press rights"! One should take into account of illegal wire tapping, the loss of 'Hey-bus in the Corpses', the right to face your accuser, the right to a speedy trail, 'the right to a trial", the use of kidnapping, extreme rednditions, imprisoment without cause-on hearsay accusations with no presentation of evidence. The list at times seems endless & only now is there showing up any evedience of intention to purposely circumvent the Constitution. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 03:35 PM Here comes the Foppery. Hippity hoppity. ;} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 09 - 03:53 PM That John Yoo, there, Sawz, was a man after your own heart, I take it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:11 PM Rahm Emanuel "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" Marxist Saul Alinsky: "Rule one, never allow a crisis go to waste." Good Job comrade Rahm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 09 - 04:13 PM What a ridiculous comparison, Sawz. By your logic, if a man is NOT a Communist, he should insist on letting all crises go to waste, because someone who was one said otherwise? Do you live your whole live but such avoidance schemes???? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 09 - 05:52 PM Well, Hitler said that the people would beleieve the Big Lie and some 60 years later we had the Big WMD Lie... And people did beleive it... Even after evidence to contrary a large number of people still believed it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Mar 09 - 09:34 PM Bobert with the ear plugs, blindfold and ballerina slippers: I got my apology all ready, waitin' and gift wrapped for when you do what you said you would do. I might eve throw in a box of pink peeps left over from last Easter and a six pack of Turbo Dog to wash 'em down with. Bobert: "Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up." OK Bobert, I will admit that I am wrong about Saddam being given a gold plated M16 if you can show it in one of the sources you cited. Ya got a deal. Your turn Bobert. Let your Honesty overcome your Ego. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 04 Mar 09 - 11:11 PM In the 1400s, it was possible to poll people and find out that a plurality believed the world was flat. Don't forget that the full name of polls is ususally "Opinion Polls". Polls have no meaning when issues of fact are at hand. Or shall we take a poll as to whether penicillin cures bacterial disease? Maybe we should take a poll about whether my spork will fall if I let it go right now. So what is the "fact' we are discussing? *"WIN"* What does it mean, and what did it mean to those answering the poll? Without a firm handle on these, the polls are farts in a windstorm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 05 Mar 09 - 08:11 AM Sawz, Call yer local mental helth clinic and run, don't walk, to it because you are clearly disturbed... I made the correction about the M-16 along time ago... It was gold plated spurs and an M-16 rifle (unplated)... Big woop... You act as if this changes the issue here... It doesn't... It's not relavent to this discussion... Get that mental health and then come back when you have been cured of yer obsessive compulsiveness... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Mar 09 - 10:24 AM Bobert still does not hold up his end of the bargain. Instead he accuses the person he made the bargain with of being mentally disturbed. "Bobert: "Tell ya what, Sawz, I'll find the source if you'll agree that when I find it that you admit that you are wrong... Unless I get that then it's not worth the time it will take to dig it up." Have you found that source yet? You made the following statement during this discussion so it must be revelant: "Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a (redacted) M-16 rifle." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 05 Mar 09 - 11:10 AM Yo, Sawz... For the ten millionth time, I corrected the booty list a long time ago... Your continued harrassment won't change that... If you can't accept that then go get mental health 'cause you certainly are coming off as some slobbering cyber-sicko... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 05 Mar 09 - 06:33 PM Meanwhile spare a thought for Teribus and his other war. The problems of Afghanistan, far from being overcome, are spreading across Pakistan too. But perhaps all is not lost, as NATO is now hoping to be dug out of its hole by Russia and Iran. (Amos, Edmund said it, not Lear.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Mar 09 - 10:49 PM Bobert: "I'll find the source" Where is the source Bobert? Correcting the fact that the mythological M-16 was not gold plated does not reveal the source or who when and where the mythological M-16 was given. "Okay it was a pair of golden spurs and an M-16" Does this reveal the source? Then there is your statement that: "Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty" What was the "all kinds of booty", when where and how did the US provide the gas? Bobert: "What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news" Where is the source for the above facts por favor? You said you would look it up so please do so. "But wait, fir an extra $2.95 (plus shipping and handling) you'll get documentation that the US government had promised the Kurds they would support them against Saddam... Hmmmmmmk??? I got my $2.95 for the documentation right here, Where do I send it? You are very good at making personal attacks instead of backing up your ******* Bobert Facts ******* except with threats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:04 AM Fionn typical BBC reporting, that's the same BBC that cannot write the word "Taleban" without prefixing it with "resurgent", the same BBC who have predicted massive spring and summer Taleban offensives that will drive ISAF out of the country every year since 2006 - odd that none of them have ever materialised. If you actually read the item they are talking about talks. Read nothing in it at all about Iran or Russia being asked to dig anyone out of a hole. Anything like that would be have to be done through the United Nations. They after all were the ones who put NATO into Afghanistan. Now what has the "Beeb" got to tell us about how terrible things are in Iraq?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:30 AM "This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune,--often the surfeit of our own behavior,--we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as if we were villains by necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star! My father compounded with my mother under the dragon's tail; and my nativity was under Ursa major; so that it follows, I am rough and lecherous. Tut, I should have been that I am, had the maidenliest star in the firmament twinkled on my bastardizing." — William Shakespeare (King Lear) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 09 - 07:26 AM Fact: Georeg Bush's war machine lied about Iraq having WMDs... Fact: George Bush's war machine lied about ties between Iraq and al qeada... Fact: Goerge Bush's war machine lied about Iraq trying to by nuclear material Fact: On January 27th Hanz Blix stated that the Iraqis were cooperating with the inspectors in letting the inspectors inspect whereever they (the inspectors) wanted... Opinion: Given that the US was in a position to find or not find WMDs in Iraq there is a cognitive disconnect in why the Bush war machine ordered up the invasion... That is the discussion here... Anyother discussion is just subterfuge... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:01 AM "Fact: Georeg Bush's war machine lied about Iraq having WMDs..." False. Since Bush said that Saddam had WMD programs, NOT WEAPONS, you are making a strawman arguement based on a lie ( LIE 1) "Fact: George Bush's war machine lied about ties between Iraq and al qeada..." False. Bush stated that there were reports , and there have been shown by Iraqi documents that Al Quida did recieve aid and comfort by Saddam. ( LIE 2) "Fact: Goerge Bush's war machine lied about Iraq trying to by nuclear material" False. There are records of Saddam trying to get nuclear PROGRAM materials ( forbidden by the UN) the mistake about the yellow cake ( Gee, we bought HOW MUCH yellowcake from Iraq, and shipped it secretly to the US? But I guess it was a gift, since he did not buy it...) ( I will not call this a lie, as the specific claim was mistaken, although Saddam has been shown to buy nuclear material. "Fact: On January 27th Hanz Blix stated that the Iraqis were cooperating with the inspectors in letting the inspectors inspect whereever they (the inspectors) wanted..." You fail to tell the rest of the report, where Blix states that it is NOT suffiecient, and that Saddam is STILL in violation ( after his last chance to come clean) of the UNR. This one I have told you before, and the specific statemnet you make, while true, is NOT what the report states as a conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:36 AM LOL, bb... You know he lied and we all know that you will go to the grave defending him... Nothing new here... BTW, will you explain what is more important than "most important" which is what Blix said in reference to the report where he said the Iraqi's were cooperating???? I don't think that there is a word "moster" which would relegate "most important" to mean not "most important"... But with yer logic (or lack thereof) I'm sure you find some way the degrade "most important" to meaning something less than that... That is the crux of all of you arguments... Semamtics verses reality... I gues that "mushroom cloud" was not literally a mushroom cloud but something quite different... That's the problem we have here... Most folks, other than diehard Bush-heads, would agree that the Bush war machine centered its arguments for war on 3 lies: WMDs (not programs, or wantabee programs) but WMDs, an al qeada link and Iraq trying to buy nuclear material... That's reality to everyone in the world other than you folks who blindly followed the Bush War campaign... Ya'll can wiggle a sqirm now but it doesn't change the facts of the s Maybe you should revist some of the reporting in the Post from those days... No, not cherry pick but revisit the entirity of the articles written in the Post... The Post even admits that it got sucked into a "culture" during the selling of the war and admitted that it should have been more dilligent in questiooning the claims of the Bush War Machine... I believe that article was buried in the A-section on August 17, 2004 but I haven't looked for it for a while so that might not be the correct date... So, bb, revise away... You are in a very tiny minority of people who just can't deal with reality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:08 AM Don't shoot the messenger Teribus. The BBC report was quoting Clinton. For instance: "If we move forward with such a meeting, it is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbour of Afghanistan." And: "We can and must find ways to work constructively with Russia where we share areas of common interest, including helping the people of Afghanistan." Teribus may not realise it, but this is a repositioning. To me it has a hint of desperation about it, but no doubt Teribus will read it as confirmation that NATO has achieved a military triumph and wiped the Taleban from the face of the planet.(LOL) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:43 AM Bobert I am waiting for you to supply the source of the "facts" that you brought to this discussion. So far you have chickened out and are in a state of denial. "For the ten millionth time, I corrected the booty list a long time ago." So the "all kinds of booty" was: _________________________________ The source was: _________________________________ Now as fir other blogs???? I don't go to any of them... What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news... Nuthin' more!!! Allnatural, here... If I happen to see things the same way as some anti-Bush blogs see things then, hey, means we're both payin' attention.... But I swaer on my daddy's grave that these are my sources and I don't need nobody to tell me what to think or how to defend the postions I take... And I take that very seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 09 - 10:30 AM THe media were rich with implications, innuendos and even bald statements that Iraq was a holder of and potential user of weapons of mass destruction. "The smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud", said Condi. Remember tha one? The administration made multiple statements on multiple occasions directly implying linksbetween al Qwda's attack on the US and Iraq. Are you seriously trying to weasel that fact? It has been documented in these threads almost as many times as it happened. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 09 - 01:10 PM "THe media were rich with implications, innuendos and even bald statements that Iraq was a holder of and potential user of weapons of mass destruction." - Amos Ah so it was the MEDIA who stated that Iraq had WMD - How does that translate to this being a "Bush Lie" as Bobert wants it to be broadcast as. If fact if either of you ever bothered to read what the mandate of UNMOVIC was you would both know that UNMOVIC did not go into IRAQ to FIND WMD - They were tasked with going into Iraq to determine and verify what the status was with regard to WMD, WMD Programmes, WMD Weapons, WMD Delivery systems and Precursor Materials. "The administration made multiple statements on multiple occasions directly implying linksbetween al Qwda's (??) attack on the US and Iraq." - Amos That is a blatant lie Amos. Within five days of the attacks that took place on the 11th September, 2001 two senior members of the Bush administration stated clearly and unequivocally in broadcast statements and in interviews that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM But that's not the Party Line they told the public prior to that cover-your-ass announcement. They ginned up the iraq invasion by linking Al Quaeda and Hussein. "Smoking gun....mushroom cloud?" Bush's WMD pronouncement. B.S. to sell the invasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 06 Mar 09 - 05:39 PM Teribus, that is utter and arrant bollocks, and if you search your conscience you will recognise the fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 09 - 06:02 PM If that is utter arrant bollocks Gervase then prove it - And guess what?? I can tell you now that you will not be able to. Are you denying the fact that Colin Powell on the steps of the UN Building in New York on 16th September told CNN that the US were positive that neither Saddam Hussein or Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of the 11th September? Are you denying that that same evening in an interview with Bob Russert on "Meet the Press" Vice-President Dick Cheney was asked: Russert: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" Cheney: "No." Now exactly what part of "No" do you not understand Gervase?? Can you give us any clue as to how he could have made his answer slightly less ambiguous?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 09 - 08:16 PM No, dimwit. The state,ents were by SECDEF, SECSTATE, POTUS and VPOTUS. They were reported int he media. Verbatim. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 09 - 09:24 PM Yo, Sawz... As fir yer little juvilinistic game, try this one on on fir size: F**k off!!! I've grown tiresome of yer gnat impersonation... You add absolutely nothin' to this discussion at all... Your little kindergartenish game is beneath me... You can type big scarey letters... I don't care... Paint 'um red... I don't care... You are just a cyber wuss as far as I can see who thinks he has something on me... You ain't got jack on me... Alll you have is yer little game because you have given up trying to defend this war... If you continue this line of childish and borderline obseesive behavior I will ask that Joe Offer remove your posts from this thread... I have a right to do that because it is my thread and you are trying to highjack it with meaningless childrens games... This thread is for adults... Not the Pampers crowd... Last warning!!! Keep f**king with this thread and I'll either have you bounced or I'll have the thread closed... Square business... And if you don't like it, I'm transparent... I'm easy to find... Come talk to me... Know what I nean, Vern??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Mar 09 - 11:51 PM Bobert: If you are an adult and I am childish, just answer the questions about what you posted and that will solve the problem. I will answer any question you ask the best way I know how. You might not like the answer and you might ridicule it rather than bring up a supportable fact that disproves it but at least it will be an answer, not an avoidance tactic and not a threat. What I have "on" you is you are constantly stating outrageous things that have no basis in fact and you will not provide any support for those facts. The US did not supply the "bad gas" for Saddam to use on the Kurds and they did not reward him afterwards with all kinds of booty including a M-16 rifle. To make such serious claims that are unsupported and unfounded is irresponsible. Just because you claim it is the truth does not make it the truth. To make callous remarks and refuse to support them is not adult behavior and not responsible behavior. Then you accuse me of being some kind of bully while you bully Tbus endlessly and call him a "belligerant blowhard who is too friggin; proud and partisan to admit that you are wrong" but if someone accuses you of being a blowhard because you wont answer questions, that is not allowed and someones teeth are threatened. So tell Joe to kick me off or end the tread if you want but I don't believe I am being threatening, insulting or abusive but just some one you can't blow off because you don't want to or can't support your claims. So now I am asking politely again for the source for your assertions about the gas, the rifle, the booty reward. Please. Thanks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 09 - 12:12 AM The National Journal: "" One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources. The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records. The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents. Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists. On November 18, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he planned to attach an amendment to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill that would require the Bush administration to give the Senate and House intelligence committees copies of PDBs for a three-year period. After Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on language for the amendment, Kennedy said he would delay final action on the matter until Congress returns in December. The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. "What the President was told on September 21," said one former high-level official, "was consistent with everything he has been told since-that the evidence was just not there." In arguing their case for war with Iraq, the president and vice president said after the September 11 attacks that Al Qaeda and Iraq had significant ties, and they cited the possibility that Iraq might share chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons with Al Qaeda for a terrorist attack against the United States...." resident George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses. On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war. It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it. In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric. President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14). The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews. Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war: On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' " In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it. In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear." On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons. On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax." On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]." The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.... http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ Administration Statements Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. I think this horse is dead. Can I stop beating it now? A |
