Iraq abuse 'as bad as Saddam era'

by Simon 28 Replies latest social current

• 

  AuldSoul

  Congress voted based on the evidence and statements provided to Congress by the Bush Administration. That information was wildly innaccurate and was largely based on Ahmad Chalabi's "intimate knowledge" of Iraqi capabilities.

  metatron wrote:

  Mr. Allawi is a secular Shiite politician trying to appeal to secular Sunni voters, amoung others. His claims need to [be] taken with a grain of salt.

  I am curious, metatron. That is how you say we should take the word of an Iraqi who is still in country and who has a vested interest in the success of his country's play for self-determination. How would you say Bush's Administration should have taken Chalabi's "intelligence" given that Chalabi was a Shiite politico exiled from Iraq and angry with Saddam personally?

  With regard to the French and other governments thinking Saddam had "such weapons," did the French government regard Saddam Hussein as a threat? No. They were not asked whether he had them, they were asked whether they felt it was possible that he had them. European countries would answer similarly of any mid-Eastern nation. The "French Intel" that "corroborated" US Intel consisted of what exactly? The French say they were only asked whether they felt it was possible.

  The fact is, the Bush Administration didn't say it was possible that Saddam had WMD. The Bush Administration said he definitely had WMD and demanded that he disarm or face invasion. If you tell me to get rid of all my diamonds or you're coming to kick my ass, I'm about to get my ass kicked because I don't have any diamonds.

  The war was started on faulty intel, the claim was made the intel was solid. Congress voted based on that Presidential promise. A purpose of the war was stated to be "bringing Democracy to Iraq." Stating what form of government a sovereign nation must adopt while claiming to promote the concept of self-determination for the nation is more than a "bit disingenuous," don't you think?

  AuldSoul
• 

  Trace

  AuldSoul,

  You are taking a complex topic and trying to simplify it ...so naturally you'll leave some important information out...but you're leaving too much out ....and you are being less than accurate.

  One question: Have you read the 9/11 Commission's Report? I have. Some very interesting explanations on how intelligence gathering occurs (or doesn't).

  Your lack of knowledge on these matters is evident in statements like

  The war was started on faulty intel, the claim was made the intel was solid. Congress voted based on that Presidential promise.

  To what "promise" you refer is anyone's guess .... (I've stop trying to make sense of arguments when people express their opinions as facts).

  The truth is, you really don't know what this government or that government or another government "said." You know what you've been told they said. Get it?

  Read the 9/11 Commission's Report.... you'll (hopefully) understand a bit more about how these matters REALLY work .... and don't be so gullible....I thought most folks on this board left their sheep-like days behind them?
• 

  AuldSoul

  Read the 9/11 Commission's Report

  I did. And I also noticed the nice Saudi-Friendly markup in the report, did you? Either way, what in the hell does 9/11 have to do with the war on Iraq? Iraq wasn't even a peripheral player in 9/11. We aren't discussing 9/11, but the success of the Bush Administration in tying the two together in your mind is certainly showing.

  And I really do know what the French government said they were asked regarding Saddam's capabilities. Do you?

  To what "promise" you refer is anyone's guess

  The Presidential promise to Congress was that the intel regarding possession of WMD was "solid." Look it up. Don't rely on what you are told.

  Congressman after Congressman, on both sides of the aisle, stated that without assurances from the President's Administration and/or the Intelligence Community (presumably CIA/FBI/Pentagon) regarding the certainty of the presence of WMD in Iraq's possession and the ramp up to the manufacture of more WMD they would vote against the war.

  I watched the ENTIRE deliberation and vote on the floor on CSPAN, live. Did you? They acted in good faith that the President and Intelligence Community had not misled them. They were grossly misled. The records of the Senator's comments and deliberations on the floor are open for your perusal. Look it up.

  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  you really don't know what this government or that government or another government "said."

  I know what I watched Bush say, aired live on many stations simultaneously.

  The fact is, the Bush Administration didn't say it was possible that Saddam had WMD. The Bush Administration said he definitely had WMD and demanded that he disarm or face invasion. I watched Bush make the ultimatum at the same time that he announced the penalty for non-compliance after he relized the UN was NOT going to back him even after the impressive PowerPoint presentation I watched a sweaty-lipped Powell present to the UN.

  See, in times past you might be right about what someone doesn't know. But in a day and age when I can sit in my living room and WATCH my government lie to my face, well, your automatic assumptions about my ignorance carry no weight.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Trace

  You obviously are too emotionally charged on this issue at this time and are allowing that to cloud your ability to understand what I am writing...let alone refute it.

  As very small example:

  what in the hell does 9/11 have to do with the war on Iraq? Iraq wasn't even a peripheral player in 9/11. We aren't discussing 9/11

  What I suggested was

  ...the 9/11 Commission's Report? [has] ...very interesting explanations on how intelligence gathering occurs (or doesn't).

  I was not stating that 9/11 had ANYTHING to do with the effort to free the people of Iraq and protect America. I was suggesting that one could get much needed (evidently) information on how intelligence is actually gathered by read that report. Period.

  But, AuldSoul, you missed that point. It was a simple, clearly stated premise 'the 9/11 report gives insight into intelligence gathering.'

  Yet you respond "what in the hell does 9/11 have to do with the war on Iraq? Iraq wasn't even a peripheral player in 9/11. We aren't discussing 9/11"

  So it is clear that much of the argument is um ...er..."escaping" you. In your defense, it is probably due to an obvious emotional reaction ...

  I'm certain you're a nice person and all that but ...if you interpret my statement '9/11 report can help one understand intelligence gathering' and imply that I am making a connection between the Iraq War and 9/11 ...then .... either you're clouding by emotionalism or ...you're employing a brand of "theocratic warfare."

  My son has science homework so ...you get the last word ...for tonight at least. :-)
• 

  heathen

  My point was more about the constitutionality of what the government did . The US military can only be used to preserve and protect the republic it cannot be used as a mercenary militia . Pre emptive strikes are unconstitutional , I didn't just make that up , I've actually heard the senators talking about it . The senate was up in arms that they did not even get to vote or represent the people in the matter at all , the country itself was split on the issue of war there was not real majority in favor of it but somehow every congress person voted in favor . Don't you think those against should have had some representation ? George Bush is a crook and a slanderer for saying those against the war are unpatriotic . This is just a clear cut example of how much a democracy we don't have here in the US and how much of one the Iraqis won't have when they are done .I actually can't wait to read the new constitution which I believe will be quotes from the koran anyway .
• 

  ShepGator

  So right! The lies and bullshit are so blatent about why we invaded Iraq it just absolutely stinks! Why aren't people more outraged?! Why aren't people protesting and marching like the Vietnam days? Its because Bush and his cronies have made it out to where if you speak against the war, you are unpatriotic, you hate America, you are anti-supportive of the troops and of course, you are an atheisist heathen also. I could care less about being labeled any of these but most people are so afraid of these labels that they turn tail and march in step to all the lies, bullshit, and propoganda that Bush is generating. Expect now also to start seeing and hearing commercials that Bush is making to tell more fucking lies and we as taxpayers are helping pay for the this shit. If I see one more huge gas-guzzling SUV with a Jesus sticker on one side and a Bush/Cheney on the other I am going to throw up! I firmly belive that the gas prices are falling because Bush knew he had to do something to make the American people feel better and be less critical of him. Tis the fucking season - spend that money - run those 18% credit cards up. Yea America!
• 

  heathen

  Shepgator , me thinks you will be edited if you don't edit your post of certain F words .LOL you may even be booted permanently . Just a warning . but welcome for now ....LOL
• 

  AuldSoul

  I'm certain you're a nice person and all that

  I assure you, your certainty is sorely misplaced.

  That said, I am fairly dispassionate in my statement that 9/11 has damn all to do with Iraq. I have no idea why you would bring 9/11 or anything connected to it (including intel gathering) into a discussion about the debacle that is the Iraq war. There isn't a single correlative point that comes to mind between the two situations. 9/11 intel gathering deals with rather mundane collection and analysis of data with an attachment of degree of importance to the data base on various criteria.

  Whereas, the intel gathering in the leadup to the war on Iraq was entirely pushed from above toward a specific predetermined outcome. There was no such influence exerted regarding pre-9/11 intel.

  If you are referring to the completely botched job of intel gathering pre-9/11 and comparing that to the abysmal failure of intel gathering pre-Iraqi war, point duly noted and agreed with. If your point is that intel gathering regarding post/pre-9/11 was conducted in some way akin to pre-Iraqi war intel gathering, I have to say you have WAY too much confidence in your government to be inferring that anyone else is gullible. That is outright bullshit.

  You refer to "how" intel is gathered and seem to indicate that a process of intel gethering can somehow be gleaned from the 9/11 Report. Please, indicate the passages I should refer to to give me that sense of the process. If you say, The whole book someone standing near you should smack your head for me .

  AuldSoul