REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bush = Dumb Ass

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Thursday, August 19, 2004 18:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 12773
PAGE 2 of 3

Friday, August 6, 2004 6:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


WaddleDoodle, nobody said that we MADE the WMD here, what I said was "we sent the MATERIALS to make them". We also sent equipment and provided the "ground truth" in use against Iran. Did you not read my post? Or did you really misrepresent me on purpose? What a stupid effing article to bring up.


However, if you want, you may look up the facts:

www.cooperativeresearch.org/
globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html

EDITED TO ADD: Since the issue was the USA's involvement in supplying WMD materials to Iraq- NOT the supply of conventional weapons- why don't you do us all a favor and eliminate 90% of your previous post as being off-topic? Save us all some scroll-time, and we can focus on the part of your post that is relevant.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 6:05 PM

WADDLEDOODLE


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,
Do you also claim that Iraq is FREE and DEMOCRATIC when the basics of national policy were shoved down their throats by Bremer and the CPA? Whether YOU or I think these are good things is beside the point - it supposed to be Iraq's decision.



You're right!

We should release Saddam and let him get back to work rebuilding his 50 palaces.

How much freedom did Iraqi's have during Saddam? Do they have more now??? Will they have more in the future???

************************
Fact Sheet
Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime

For over 20 years, the greatest threat to Iraqis has been Saddam Hussein's regime -- he has killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades.

When Iraq is free, past crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against Iraqis, will be accounted for, in a post-conflict Iraqi-led process. The United States, members of the coalition and international community will work with the Iraqi people to build a strong and credible judicial process to address these abuses.

Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions - the vast majority of them Muslims.


According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

Allegations of prostitution used to intimidate opponents of the regime, have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women.

Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

The U.S. Committee for Refugees, in 2002, estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."

"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) o Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. o Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.

The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."

Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including: o 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984 o 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998 o 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign" o 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000 o 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001 o At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001

****************

Iraq is better off without Saddam, no matter what you write, there's no way to dispute that removing Saddam, his sons, and the regime hasn't made life better in Iraq.

"Let the Iraqi's decide" you write.....so by that logic we should have let FRANCE decide for itself as to whether or not we should have helped them recapture their country from the Germans in WW2? And no, the FREE FRENCH and Gen. de Gaul DON'T COUNT. The governemt in place was the Vichy government who would have said "No thanks" and the frogs would STILL be croaking in German.
Sure the Vichy government was installed by the Germans in a coup, Saddam achieved power through a coup also. Guess the French SHOULD have been left to their own devices...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 6:42 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh wow, they found one shell. You know, if that sarin had not been deteriorated those soldiers (and everyone around for a few miles downwind) would be dead. Ditto "the" shell of mustard gas. I guess it really needed 130,000 troops to disarm Iraq!


We didn't invade Iraq because of "all of those UN resolutions" that they ignored. Do you really not remember the long presentation that Colin Powell made before the UN, or the fact that we "knew" that Iraq had WMD ready to deploy in 45 minutes?

Wow, I guess I agree with Rue, I'm not going to bother cleaning up the stuff you plopped all over this thread.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 6:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


edited

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 7:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!



Quote:
Iraq is better off without Saddam, no matter what you write, there's no way to dispute that removing Saddam, his sons, and the regime hasn't made life better in Iraq.

"Let the Iraqi's decide" you write.....so by that logic we should have let FRANCE decide for itself as to whether or not we should have helped them recapture their country from the Germans in WW2? And no, the FREE FRENCH and Gen. de Gaul DON'T COUNT. The governemt in place was the Vichy government who would have said "No thanks" and the frogs would STILL be croaking in German.
Sure the Vichy government was installed by the Germans in a coup, Saddam achieved power through a coup also. Guess the French SHOULD have been left to their own devices...

Bush lied about WMD.
Thousands of Iraqis were killed.
Hundreds (nearly 1,000 to date) of Americans were killed.
Hepatitis E and typhoid are sickening uncounted numbers - due to a lack of clean water. http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle5004.html
The infrastructure is still a wreck, unemployment is over 50%, random violence and kidnapping make everyday life risky. Infant and child mortality have not improved from Hussein's days.
Iraqis have been disenfranchised by the US (rather than Hussein). Hussein is no longer the source of misery and fear - generalized poverty and violence are. Imagine if the US had treated post-WWII France the same way we did Iraq by 'liberating' their natural resources to benefit our business interests. Iraq is not WWII France, despite your strained analogy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 8:16 PM

RAY53208


does the argument of semantics distract from knowing right from wrong? right from wrong is a deeply personal viewpoint isnt it? as much as i try to balance the cold logic of the necessary with the passionate ferver of morality, i still cant make the equation balance. maybe things like this arent meant to be quantified and codexed and measured? maybe it is the weakest of humans who picks the lesser of two evils without striving to carve out a third, better option?

unlike some of you i find myself without answers or retorts; only questions that there are no answers for. the things you have quoted, the references cited... has it made any difference ultimately? debate is not necessarily action, is it?

i feel like a drowning man grasping for solid ground. how long before the euphoria of the final gasp?

i love my country and my fellow americans with a great love, which is why sometimes i cannot stand what we have become. we: you and me.

as a child i was told that we were founded by heroes yearning for freedom. later i learned that what we are today is built upon the misery and sufferring of other peoples. how can we be good if this is true?

i just dont know anything anymore. i have no answers. no arguments. no defenses. nothing. you can say what you will. about me, about my thoughts. what will it acomplish?

ray

“With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, changes us all irrevokably. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we are all damaged."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 6, 2004 10:01 PM

SHINYOBJECT


hi

While there are things that bush stands for that i do not agree with and i don't truly know enough about Kerry to make an educated vote what has truly disenfranchised me is the way we go about things.

everytime I've heard a political discussion among folk it either turns into a love letter towards a pirticular candidate with the other side being bashed by people who all agree with one another, or practically a barroom brawl among those who don't agree. but even I have done a far amount of this sort of debate myself so i can understand the passion people throw into their opinions

I'm young and naive but once in while I'd truly like to see a politician say on national TV "I was wrong, let's try this now" or "I have changed my mind" espically when so much of the job of president isn't battling with the abhorrently evil or triumphing the ultimate good but instead dealing with the day to day finances where you can't help everyone but you try to set up programs to do the best you can.

But instead the solution in politics always seems to be either to stubbornly stick to your guns until the situation demands a change or to bash your opponant to make him look worse then you are.

surely there must be a way to hold to our ideals withoutm trodding on the ideals of others

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 7, 2004 3:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


When people feel passionately about something, it DOES turn into a barroom brawl.

I'm not really for Kerry or pro-Democrat. I find MOST politicians in most parties to be venal, vote-swapping wheeler-dealers who have probably spent 0.001% of their time actually thinking about the good of the country. I can count principled politicians on the fingers of one hand: Feingold, Kucinich, McCain, Wellstone (before he died).

I didn't vote for Clinton and I'm going to hold my nose when I vote for Kerry. But right now I belong to that vast ABB Party (Anybody But Bush Party) because I find his Administration worse than venal, I find it to be actively working against democracy.

Unfortunately, fear-mogering works. If you can make people AFRAID of your opponent... especially if you can link your opponent to some external boogeyman... it gets more votes than if you run a positive campaign. Fear trumps hope every time.

One more comment that maybe sounds off-topic but isn't: I think Americans are hopeless and fearful. There was a time- you may be too young to remember- when we believed we could build a better world. What we've settled for is the capitalist view that life is just one long vicious dog-eat-dog battle. And the funny thing is that by believing this myth the only ones we are hurting are ourselves: average people who struggle for a few crumbs on the arena floor, failing to look up and see the people who have pitted us against each other.

What is so distressing is that the average Iraqi and the average American really have more in common than the issues that divide us. But we've been pitted against each other by lies and ideology and only Halliburton, KB&R and Bechtel are benefitting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 7, 2004 3:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, I deny the claim that Iraq had current WMD relevant to US and regional security. Not only that, I could tell just settin' on my front porch rocking chair without any special knowledge on my part that the Bush administration knew it was all a dodge too.

I told people at work over and over, months before the invasion, that it had nothing to do with WMD, that it was all about the oil. (I admit I was partly wrong on that one- it was all about the oil and the reconstruction contracts.)

Furthermore, I wrote to Senator and told her so, only to receive a patronizing email saying

"Thank you for your letter about my vote for the Resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq....I voted for the Resolution because I believe it will...avoid war. I have been reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12th which conveyed a commitment to work with the U.N. towards that goal.... There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein and his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons pose a real and persuasive threat to the safety and security of the United States, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East.... While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography... The great danger is a nuclear one. ... I continue to have serious concerns that there are those in the Administration who would seek to use this authorization for a unilateral, pre-emptive attack against Iraq.... " blah blah blah

I wish I was making this up. At the time, all I could think was "Stupid cow, she's so in love with the idea of being in the in-group that she can't do a common-sense analysis of the obvious."

I've been saying in many threads on this board that the reason why I have confidence in my view of the world is because it's so darn PREDICTIVE. Yes, I CAN predict things months in advance. Furthermore, I have a pretty good bullshit detector, and it's just so... hard... for me to give that all up in favor of blind ideology.

I'm not going to go into a long explanation of how I came to these particular predictions unless you want me to. However, I will make my predictions known as I develop them (stock market predictions too. In fact, the last comment that I got on my stock market predictions as of Wednesday was "You're sick". In the meantime, I've got my check-book at the ready.) and you can tell me whether I have a grip on reality or not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 7, 2004 12:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


There is a thread called 'the demonization of the opposition' for those of you who have an interest. Be forwewarned, it is EXTREMELY long and comes at the topic from many directions..

Some of you posters seem young. I am old enough for Vietnam to have been my education. Until then I believed everything the government said and supported everything it did. We (I thought of myself as an American just like any other) were right and just, and stood for democracy around the world.

There was no one defining revelation that turned it around. It took years (literally) of listening to debates, reading articles, and watching news and documentaries. It brought home the gap between what the government said, and what it did. The notions that the government lies in order to do what it wants, that it doesn't stand for democracy and justice, and that the very powerful don't have your or my interests at heart even as they pawn our lives, is still, after all these years, something I have to remind myself about.

And my education is not nearly complete. Like SignyM, I believe those who can predict the result of complex systems and events have a better understanding than those who can't. And I am amazed by some of the people I deal with, who draw obscure conclusions and make valid predictions from their everyday, non-classified, non-privileged observations. I find their thinking to be deeply pragmatic and almost mechanical, in the same way evolution is. It can be mistaken for cynicism. But they continue to be predictive in a way that I, with my biases and blind spots, am not.

Some thing I have learned. I couldn't fathom WHY the US was so interested in Iraq. But I KNEW, from reading the text of speeches and following events, that there were no massive stockpiles of WMDs threatening the US. I predicted it months before the invasion, and I took a lot of heat for it.

Some things dumbfound me to this day. About 18 months after going into Afghanistan, with 9/11 still raw, bin Laden on the loose, and the words DEAD OR ALIVE !!! echoing in the air, how could the US could have been induced to forget him and turn to Iraq? It was as if bin Laden had never been.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 7, 2004 1:29 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,
Do you also claim that Iraq is FREE and DEMOCRATIC when the basics of national policy were shoved down their throats by Bremer and the CPA? Whether YOU or I think these are good things is beside the point - it supposed to be Iraq's decision.


No. Probably not totally free and democratic. Closer than they were a couple of years ago. It will probably take some time to get to the point where there is a stable enough infrastructure to allow complete autonomy. The folks there have no experience with representative government at all and it takes a while to learn and develop the mechanisms.

Now let me ask you one. Do you think that if we'd just loaded up and left after the fall of Baghdad that they'd be closer to a free and democratic government right now? With no one at all in charge, and no way to set up a government, whoever had the most guns would be running the country now, and I doubt that "free and democratic" would be on their agenda.

Regardless of how anyone feels about the war, it happened. Do we not now have a responsability to provide at least the basis for a stable government for Iraq, having taken their old one away? Or should we just abandon them to the al-Sadr militia or the "insurgents" who use suicide bombs and beheadings as everyday tools of policy?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 7, 2004 2:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I propose they decide, and while it's a topic, that they have control of their national resources, economy, and policies.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 7, 2004 2:36 PM

RANGRBOB


To anyone who thinks that Kerry and Bush are cut from the same cloth and that a vote for one is a vote for the other consider this. A first term Kerry who has to worry about re-election is better than a second term Bush who can do whatever he wants without worrying about the results. Just thought I'd put that out there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 7, 2004 2:40 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I propose they decide, and while it's a topic, that they have control of their national resources, economy, and policies.


Please explain to me how this would work. If the Americans left tomorrow, and took the provisional government and the CPA with them, do you expect that the infrastructure to control Iraq's resources, economy, or policies would just appear out of thin air? Not to mention the infrastructure to support a stable, democratic government. Do you think that the radical Islamist militias would just throw down their guns and start voter registration drives?

If you can come up with some actual method of providing security, infrastructure support, and self-government for Iraq that doesn't involve the USA, the CPA, and the provisional government, I'd be glad to listen to it. Until then I have to believe that if we leave now, we'll be leaving the Iraqis to much worse than they had before.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 7, 2004 7:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Right now, I haven't a clue as to how to fix Iraq. George (dumbf*ck) Bush apparently didn't realize that it's a lot easier to break things than it is to fix them. Part of the solution would be to give Iraqi assests back to the Iraqis. Of course, that is exactly what ISN'T going to happen because that was the point of the whole war to begin with.

I suspect that that since Allawi is the CIA's man (Chalabi was the neocon's candidate) "they" are going to go forward with the original CIA/ State Department Plan, which would involve reversing de-Baathification and putting Baath Party members back in power under new ownership... I mean, leadership. I have no idea how that is supposed to work.

So, while I cogitate on the solution for Iraq's ills, let me leave you with this thought: The LAST person I would want solving this problem is the person who created it in the first place. Why anyone want to put George (d) Bush back into power for a four-year chance to screw more things up is beyond me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 3:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


[ sarcasm]Sorry, I sometimes forget that it's all a big conspiracy to make Iraq the 51st state. But lets assume for a second that the Carlyle Group, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Illuminati, and "Them" decided to allow Iraq out of their evil clutches.[ /sarcasm]

How would the country's assets be "given back" to the Iraqis, when they never had them previously. Saddam and the Baathists had the assets while the people lived at subsistance level. It takes some sort of bureaucracy, private or public, to handle the resources necessary for a modern country to run.

Regardless of who is President next year, they're going to have to deal with Iraq. Calling Bush (or Kerry) a dumbass doesn't make that fact go away. If you don't like how things are being handled, come up with some constructive solutions. Bush-bashing may be fun, and may give you that nice feeling of moral superiority, but it doesn't really do much for the man on the street in Iraq.

Also recall that, even with a pretty good basis in representative democracy from the colonial assemblies, it took the Americans quite a while to come up with the government we have now. And they were left pretty much in peace to do it. Do you think that the Iraqis, with no history of self-government and various armed factions wanting to take over, can do it instantly?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 6:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, stop putting stupid statements in my mouth. You REALLY don't know what I know. Example:

Did you know that there was/is a deep division between the CIA/State Department/Pentagon military on the one hand and the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ civilian advisors (neocons) on the other about what to do in Iraq? Of course not.

Now, Chalabi shopped his candidacy for the Prime Ministership to the State Department, the CIA, and finally the neocons. He offered USA and British oil companies first crack at contracts if he should so modestly become PM. The State Department and the CIA found that he was unreliable (one the refugees that he offered to the CIA as a source of info on WMD failed a lie-detector test) but the neocons uncritically swallowed everything he had to say, setting up the Office of Special Plans (OSP) under Dougles Feith to funnel this info directly to Rumsfeld and Cheney without having to go through that pesky CIA vetting process.

Did you not find it strange that Chalabi- member of the Iraqi Governing Council and heir apparent to the interim government- should suddenly be exposed as an Iranian spy, and that Allawi- a man with CIA contacts- should arise out of nowhere to become interim head of Iraq? Or did you just brush that off as "instability"?

Where did I find this? A lengthy transcript of an NPR interview with Chalabi gave me the basic info. Being very bitter about having been jilted by the CIA and under pressure to come up with an answer about why his WMD information proved to be so unreliable, Chalabi said a lot of unflattering and revealing things about the inner working of the Administration. More importantly, everything he said was subsequently borne out by later events. Feel free to look it up yourself.

So, no more stupid straw-man arguments from you, or I'm just going to have to stop responding to you.

-------------------
Now, as far as the solution to Iraq:

Do you happen to remember one of the causes of the American Revolution? It had something to do with economics... what was it...? Something about taxes and representation?

The fact that the nascent USA had no outside forces draining it economically, was protected from "free trade" by large oceans on both sides, and also had limitless expansion room (a fact that the Founding Fathers referred to quite often and counted on to buffer our early economic and social problems) helped us become the powerhouse that we are today. Those options are not available for Iraq.

I've already said that I can't come up with a good solution for Iraq. I know that it can't be JUST a political solution (democractic elections) because any nation in economic extremis will be politically unstable. Aside from the economic factor, it will be near-impossible (I'm being optimistic here) to satisfy all three large goups in Iraq: the Kurds in the north (with oil), the Arab Shiites in the south (with oil) and the Sunnis in the middle (no oil). It's like Yugoslavia after Tito.

It may be that Iraq just enters into the list of "failed states" and festers for another three decades. I don't think that the Administration wants that to happen- they had so many lovely geopolitical and business plans for all that Iraqi oil- but for the life of me I can't imagine how to pull this bacon out of the fire.



BTW- BUSH BASHING is perfectly legitimate. HE created a huge problem with no solution in sight. Why is it that "I" - lowly citizen of the USA with absolutely no part in creating the problem - have to be "constructive"? All along, Ive been doing my darndest to point out the shortcomings to my elected representatives and being treated as if I'm just a hair's-breadth short of being a traitor. Now, THAT'S a contructive approach! Shouldn't George (d) Bush be tagged with responsibility? And if not- why not? But if you come up with anything productive, be sure to tell the Adminstration- I'm sure they'll listen to you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 7:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, stop putting stupid statements in my mouth. You REALLY don't know what I know. Example:

Did you know that there was/is a deep division between the CIA/State Department/Pentagon military on the one hand and the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ civilian advisors (neocons) on the other about what to do in Iraq? Of course not.

Now, Chalabi shopped his candidacy for the Prime Ministership to the State Department, the CIA, and finally the neocons. He offered USA and British oil companies first crack at contracts if he should so modestly become PM. The State Department and the CIA found that he was unreliable (one the refugees that he offered to the CIA as a source of info on WMD failed a lie-detector test) but the neocons uncritically swallowed everything he had to say, setting up the Office of Special Plans (OSP) under Dougles Feith to funnel this info directly to Rumsfeld and Cheney without having to go through that pesky CIA vetting process.

Did you not find it strange that Chalabi- member of the Iraqi Governing Council and heir apparent to the interim government- should suddenly be exposed as an Iranian spy, and that Allawi- a man with CIA contacts- should arise out of nowhere to become interim head of Iraq? Or did you just brush that off as "instability"?

Where did I find this? A lengthy transcript of an NPR interview with Chalabi gave me the basic info. Being very bitter about having been jilted by the CIA and under pressure to come up with an answer about why his WMD information proved to be so unreliable, Chalabi said a lot of unflattering and revealing things about the inner working of the Administration. More importantly, everything he said was subsequently borne out by later events. Feel free to look it up yourself.

So, no more stupid straw-man arguments from you, or I'm just going to have to stop responding to you.



I'm familiar with Chalabi and his travails. I also note that in one paragraph you mention that he was found unreliable, and then base the rest of your argument on statements he made to NPR while "...bitter about being jilted by the CIA..." and "...under pressure to come up with an answer about why his WMD information proved to be so unreliable...". Could it be that his statements were a little self-serving?

I admit that the sarcasm may have been a bit heavy, but whenever I see "they" in quotes, i.e.

Quote:
I suspect that that since Allawi is the CIA's man (Chalabi was the neocon's candidate) "they" are going to go forward with the original CIA/ State Department Plan...


...it just brings out the devil in me. And other statements you've made would lead one to believe that you think it's "all about the oil".

You would probably consider it naive of me to think that the US is doing its clumsy best to give the people of Iraq a stable and independent government. Ever consider that I might think you a bit paranoid for believing it's all just an evil plan to steal their oil?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 8:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer, you've been bobbing and weaving to avoid answering ANY questions. Neither do you provide any back-up for YOUR assertions, while demanding it from others. Instead you throw (unsupported) mud at everything people have to say. *
But in answer to the Iraq question, I'll answer your question if you answer mine. But since I already provided one answer - now you have two to answer.
The first question is this:
Quote:
The numbers don't take into account Iraqi dead.
HOWEVER, does it not bother you that people died for a lie? That Iraq is not 'free'? Or are you so propagandized that things like that don't matter anymore?

The second question will follow on your answer to the first.

* edited to remove a comment I realized, on reflection, was uncalled for. My apologies for any upset it may have caused.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 8:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, I consider it naive of you. My first response is- When we have suported so many repressive regimes in the world- INCLUDING PROVIDING SADDAM WITH WMD MATERIAL AND GROUND TRUTH- why would we suddenly balk now?? Would it perhaps not have something to do with the world's second-largest proven oil reserve that Iraq happens to be sitting on???

Nah...


My second response is- OF COURSE Chalabi's statements are self-serving. If they had not MORE IMPORTANTLY been borne out by subsequent events I wouldn't have given them much credit.

All along, I have been using the model of "It's all about the oil" and so far the model has been pretty durable and pedictive. Its' explained everything from why we protected Iraqi oil assets and let the rest of national security go hang, to why we wrote total foreign ownership into the "100 orders". If we had REALLY wanted to create stable Iraq, we would have done things much differently. The only modification that I've had to make to the model is to include the "reconstruction" contracts which basically funnel US tax dollars and Iraqi oil revenues directly into Haliburton.

Please see my comments under predictive modeling.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 11:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Iraq topic - different slant.

Speaking of predictive modeling, how did I, months in advance, conclude there were no WMD? And along the same lines, how did I conclude dubya knowingly lied about WMD?

The brief answer is this - Hussein was said to have massive stockpiles of chemical and biological agents ready to launch within 45 minutes. Would a sane administration send 150,000 ground forces into an estimated 20-80% FATALITY war?

The extended answer is this -
Even under the best conditions, experts estimated 20 - 80% fatality rates from either a chemical or biological attack. But forces were sent with woefully inadequate precautions (untested suits, leaky suits, suits with parts missing, suits that didn't fit, an inadequate absolute number of suits for all but the most forward troops, faulty chemical sensors, outdated vaccines, diluted vaccines, an insufficient number of vaccines, unknown efficacy due to no strain knowledge).

What would be the POLITICAL consequences of a 20 - 80% FATALITY war? What would be the STRATEGIC consequences?

Bush may not have made this calculation on his own, but someone in his Administration did. And they gambled on two things: 1) that they were right when they (privately) concluded Iraq did NOT have massive stockpile of weapons, and 2) that there would be enough left-overs to hang Hussein, perhaps literally, at the end of the war.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 12:05 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, you've been bobbing and weaving to avoid answering ANY questions. Neither do you provide any back-up for YOUR assertions, while demanding it from others. Instead you throw (unsupported) mud at everything people have to say. *
But in answer to the Iraq question, I'll answer your question if you answer mine. But since I already provided one answer - now you have two to answer.
The first question is this:
Quote:
The numbers don't take into account Iraqi dead.
HOWEVER, does it not bother you that people died for a lie? That Iraq is not 'free'? Or are you so propagandized that things like that don't matter anymore?

The second question will follow on your answer to the first.

* edited to remove a comment I realized, on reflection, was uncalled for. My apologies for any upset it may have caused.


Sorry. Looking at the posts above, I thought that question was addressed to CONNERFLYNN, who was mentioning casualties.

I'm not sure how I could answer the other question you directed to me any more clearly.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,
Do you also claim that Iraq is FREE and DEMOCRATIC when the basics of national policy were shoved down their throats by Bremer and the CPA? Whether YOU or I think these are good things is beside the point - it supposed to be Iraq's decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Geezer:

No. Probably not totally free and democratic. Closer than they were a couple of years ago. It will probably take some time to get to the point where there is a stable enough infrastructure to allow complete autonomy. The folks there have no experience with representative government at all and it takes a while to learn and develop the mechanisms.



But, yes, it bothers me that anyone died, it bothers me that people are still dying. Whether it was for a lie or not is still a matter of opinion. I've been thoroughly propagandized by both sides of the argument and am planning to suspend judgement until I see something that proves it to ME, one way or the other. The fact that I don't believe as you do doesn't automatically mean I believe the other side's stance either.

I believe there is a possibility that Iraq can come out of this with a stable and reasonably representative government. I believe it will take a lot of work, and will probably cost more lives. I believe it is a worthwhile goal. I believe that until the U.N. is willing to take the risk of moving their folks back into Iraq to support the formation of such a government, that the CPA and the provisional government, supported by American arms to provide security, is their best bet.

I believe that some folks will make money off the whole thing, just as some were making money off the UNs "Oil for Food" programme. I don't believe that this invalidates the entire concept.

Next questioon, please.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 12:26 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Iraq topic - different slant.

Speaking of predictive modeling, how did I, months in advance, conclude there were no WMD? And along the same lines, how did I conclude dubya knowingly lied about WMD?

The brief answer is this - Hussein was said to have massive stockpiles of chemical and biological agents ready to launch within 45 minutes. Would a sane administration send 150,000 ground forces into an estimated 20-80% FATALITY war?

The extended answer is this -
Even under the best conditions, experts estimated 20 - 80% fatality rates from either a chemical or biological attack. But forces were sent with woefully inadequate precautions (untested suits, leaky suits, suits with parts missing, suits that didn't fit, an inadequate absolute number of suits for all but the most forward troops, faulty chemical sensors, outdated vaccines, diluted vaccines, an insufficient number of vaccines, unknown efficacy due to no strain knowledge).

What would be the POLITICAL consequences of a 20 - 80% FATALITY war? What would be the STRATEGIC consequences?

Bush may not have made this calculation on his own, but someone in his Administration did. And they gambled on two things: 1) that they were right when they (privately) concluded Iraq did NOT have massive stockpile of weapons, and 2) that there would be enough left-overs to hang Hussein, perhaps literally, at the end of the war.




I expect that doctrine was much the same as in Gulf War I. Although Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological agents then, American air superiority and strength in artillery supression and counter-battery fire were expected to prevent the Iraqis from successfully deploying them. This did apparently prove the case.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 12:44 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

My second response is- OF COURSE Chalabi's statements are self-serving. If they had not MORE IMPORTANTLY been borne out by subsequent events I wouldn't have given them much credit.



The only interview with Chalabi I can find on NPR is dated 05/22/2004, and for some reason the audio slug won't download. What statements did he make that have been borne out in the last 2.5 months?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 8, 2004 4:36 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What I saw was a transcript that was older (I think) than the one you're referring to. Unfortunately, the transcript was loaned to me and I no longer have a copy, and at this point it's hard for me to disentangle what I knew before and what I found out afterwards.

However, if you don't mind a best guess, the points that I recall from the transcript were:

Chalabi had been working on being PM for at least a decade.

He disavowed having any responsibility for the bad intelligence that his people provided (of course!)

The eye-opener was that the State Department and the CIA already had a detailed plan for how to deal with post-war Iraq: to "decapitate" the Baath party and use it and the Iraq Army to maintain order. But they were steam-rolled by the civilian advisors in the Pentagon (neocons) with a plan to take over the entire internal workings of Iraq.

I had already figured after Valerie Plame the CIA staff were probably pretty mad at the Administration, and I had a hunch that State Department careerists weren't too happy with Colin Powell constantly being shut down. What I didn't realize what that this went back farther. Once I realized it, the finger-pointing and blame-laying between State/CIA and the neocons was pretty obvious (all you have to do is read Danielle Pletka's columns. Pletka is part of the American Enterprise Institute- AEI- which is a neocon think tank.)

So what I had thought of being a monolithic approach to Iraq was actually quite fractured, with some pretty entrenched disagreement. THe installation of Allawi may actually have been a CIA coup of a sorts.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 9, 2004 1:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I saw was a transcript that was older (I think) than the one you're referring to. Unfortunately, the transcript was loaned to me and I no longer have a copy, and at this point it's hard for me to disentangle what I knew before and what I found out afterwards.



Chalabi was in good odor with the CPA and US Government (at least publicly) until mid-May of this year. That's when they raided his offices and booted him from the interum government. I'm not sure he would have been on NPR dishing the dirt prior to that time, while he still was in a position of power and with at least apparent US support.

And even admitting a rift between career State Dept and intelligence folk and the political advisors, (no new thing, BTW. Viet Nam comes to mind)It does seem that the net result was getting a bad apple (Chalabi) out of the bunch.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 9, 2004 3:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The interview was at least a year before the raid. By the time the raid occurred, I had read the interview and interpreted events with that transcript in mind. And the transcript was already several months old when I read it. It WAS suprising because I thought that Chalabi was saying unwise, even dangerous things. I would not, if I were in his shoes, been thumbing my nose at the State Department/ CIA.

BTW, I didn't mean a coup within the Iraqi government, I meant a coup with the USA government. I have this strange unproveable notion that getting rid of Chalabi was an "independent" operation that Rumsfeld et al didn't see coming.

It's clear that Allawi is a head-banger. Iraq security forces have been much more aggressive since he took office- I suspect (again unproveable) that the change of performance has something to do with Baath officers slowing filtering their way back in. BTW, Aussie papers report that Allawi himself may have executed a half-dozen prisoners (a la Diem) just before he took office. With Allawi in office and an actual State Department person (Negroponte) as ambassador, things are going to be much different in Iraq.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 9, 2004 6:19 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer,
Quote:
Whether it was for a lie or not is still a matter of opinion.

Yours or David Kay's? Which do you think is better informed?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 9, 2004 6:25 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, you've been bobbing and weaving to avoid answering ANY questions. Neither do you provide any back-up for YOUR assertions, while demanding it from others. Instead you throw (unsupported) mud at everything people have to say. *
But in answer to the Iraq question, I'll answer your question if you answer mine. But since I already provided one answer - now you have two to answer.
The first question is this:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The numbers don't take into account Iraqi dead.
HOWEVER, does it not bother you that people died for a lie? That Iraq is not 'free'? Or are you so propagandized that things like that don't matter anymore?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The second question will follow on your answer to the first.

* edited to remove a comment I realized, on reflection, was uncalled for. My apologies for any upset it may have caused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sorry. Looking at the posts above, I thought that question was addressed to CONNERFLYNN, who was mentioning casualties.

I'm not sure how I could answer the other question you directed to me any more clearly.


Rue - The answer to your first question is regarding Iraqi deaths is approximately 14,000 total civilian/miltary iraqi deaths.

Not all the deaths were attributed to Coalition actions, as the Iraqi Republican guard as well as the Foreign militants fired upon those who would not fight the coalition. There are still many questions about which were actual civilian deaths and which were not. Particularly since many of the combatants fought in civilian clothing from civilian areas. The body count from Coalition bombing is still far less then those of any other war, showing that we fought with great precision and thought in regards to civilian casualties.

The answer to your second question, is No. War is hell. I'm a realist. I'm sorry that Coalition forces lost their lives. I think it's a shame that Islamafascism is ok (Because it's a cultural ideal and they don't know any different) but Democracy and westernization is bad. I do not believe the war was a lie. Based on all the non-partisan research I have done, I believe it was a valid action. I also believe it was valid strategic positioning to further Democracy in the center of the Middle East as well as pinch Iran (the next to fall) from either side.

Answer to your 3rd question or statement rather, NO. Iraq is free. They are no longer under a tyranical or dictatorial rule. Elections will take place. Governments are not created over night. If Democracy in any form is going to succeed in Iraq, a stable interim government needs to be in place to replace the old. As I recall it took many years to rebuild Europe, as well as Japan. Yet many throughout the world seem to lose touch with reality when it comes to re-building Iraq and instituting a new government unlike any they have experienced.

Finally, I am not propagandized. Because my opinions differ from yours, does not make mine uninformed. On the contrary. Normally (occasionally my emotions get the best of me), I make it a point to back up my assertions with factual evidence not predicated on editorials(opinion pieces)or conspiracy theories, Unlike the majority of those who post in this particular forum.

PS - Sorry Geezer. I'm not sure why that was directed at you. I was out of town over the weekend and didn't have time to respond until today.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 9, 2004 6:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I have a feeling that Iraq will be about as free as South Vietnam under Diem, but it will take at least five years before USA citizens find out that what appears to be a democracy on the surface is actually a dictatorship. Have you looked up Negroponte's credentials lately?

BTW- the foreign ownership rules promulgated by Bremer are ILLEGAL under international law. The rules were designed to prevent the victor from pillaging the vanquished.

The reason that stampeded Congress and the public to support the invasion of Iraq was WMD, and it was a lie. A flat-out fabrication by the Administration to grab Iraqi oil fields. Please dont' start revising history or rationalizing that it was all to the greater good. I understand all of the wonderful geopolitical rationalizations that are behind the oil grab-

we can use that oil to remake the Middle East, gt in the catbird seat of OPEC, transfer our troops out of Saudi Arabia and so forth and so on-

nonetheless no matter how great the reasons sound it is the same mistake that we have been making in the Middle East for decades. You cannot "free a people" if you insist on taking their assets. Quite naturally, they will eventually want it back and then you have to install yet ANOTHER dictatorship to maintain control.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 9, 2004 7:43 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,
Quote:
Whether it was for a lie or not is still a matter of opinion.

Yours or David Kay's? Which do you think is better informed?


Key Excerpts from David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee


Acting in Iraq was justified to protect the United States and the world

Senator McCain: "[Y]ou agree with the fundamental principle here that what we did was justified and enhance the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?"

David Kay: "Absolutely."

"It would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat"

Senator Kennedy: "Many of us feel that the evidence so far leads only to one conclusion: that what has happened was more than a failure of intelligence, it was the result of manipulation of the intelligence to justify a decision to go to war..........."

David Kay: ".......All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD."

"Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441"

"In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had. We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material."

"Iraq was in clear and material violation of 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their program. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal. I hope we find even more evidence of that."

"The world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein"

"I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought. I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate."

Analysts were not pressured

"And let me take one of the explanations most commonly given: Analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that would fit the political agenda of one or another administration. I deeply think that is a wrong explanation. And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, 'I was pressured to do this.' The explanation was, very often, 'The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it' ...... And each case was different, but the conversations were sufficiently in depth and our relationship was sufficiently frank that I'm convinced that, at least to the analysts I dealt with, I did not come across a single one that felt it had been, in the military term, 'inappropriate command influence' that led them to take that position."

"Absolutely no doubt" Saddam harbored ambitions to develop and use WMD

Senator McCain: "Saddam Hussein developed and used weapons of mass destruction; true?"

David Kay: "Absolutely."

Senator McCain: "He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes or no."

David Kay: "Oh, yes."

Senator McCain: "OK. And U.N. inspectors found enormous quantities of banned chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the '90s."

David Kay: "Yes, sir."

Senator McCain: "We know that Saddam Hussein had once a very active nuclear program."

David Kay: "Yes."

Senator McCain: "And he realized and had ambitions to develop and use weapons of mass destruction."

David Kay: "Clearly."

Senator McCain: "So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?"

David Kay: "There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator."

"We have learned things that no U.N. inspector would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam"

Senator Clinton: "I think that rightly does raise questions that we should be examining about whether or not the U.N. inspection process pursuant to 1441 might not also have worked without the loss of life that we have confronted both among our own young men and women, as well as Iraqis."

David Kay: "Well, Senator Clinton, let me just add to that. We have had a number of Iraqis who have come forward and said, 'We did not tell the U.N. about what we were hiding, nor would we have told the U.N. because we would run the risk of our own' -- I think we have learned things that no U.N. inspector would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam and the tremendous personal consequences that scientists had to run by speaking the truth." That's not to say, and it's not incompatible with the fact that inspections accomplish a great deal in holding a program down. And that's where the surprise is. In holding the program down, in keeping it from break out, I think the record is better than we would have anticipated. I don't think the record is necessarily better than we thought with regard to getting the final truth, because of the power of the terrorist state that Saddam Hussein had."

Yeah.. It was all a big lie. Saddam is just a snuggly..peaceful..loving.. poet.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 9, 2004 7:49 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:
nonetheless no matter how great the reasons sound it is the same mistake that we have been making in the Middle East for decades. You cannot "free a people" if you insist on taking their assets. Quite naturally, they will eventually want it back and then you have to install yet ANOTHER dictatorship to maintain control.


I think Colin Powell put it best -
Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 9, 2004 7:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Over the years, the United States has sent its finest to makes sure that we had cheap oil, cheap bananas, and cheap labor. With the exception of WWII (which had a purpose), Vietnam (which was pointless on all counts), Bosnia and Somalia virtually all of our engagements, large and small, had something to do with resources.

I don't think you can prove to me otherwise.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 9, 2004 8:03 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,
Quote:
Whether it was for a lie or not is still a matter of opinion.

Yours or David Kay's? Which do you think is better informed?


I haven't seen any statements from David Kay indicating that he believed that Pres. Bush intentionally lied to anyone about WMD. He did note rather egregious failures in intelligence about WMD provided by several countries bureaus.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BTW- Did you not find it strange that Sistani should suddenly disappear for treatment of a "heart condition" just before all hell breaks loose in Najaf?

Now, ths isn't a prediction, more of a "I wouldn't be surprised if..." But I wouldn't be surprised if Sistani returns with clean hands when (if) al Sadr is killed to resume the throne of heir apparent of to the Shiite faction.

Did you not find it strange that Allawi should issue arrest orders against Chalabi and nephew Chalabi, making a political comeback impossible?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- Did you not find it strange that Sistani should suddenly disappear for treatment of a "heart condition" just before all hell breaks loose in Najaf?

Now, ths isn't a prediction, more of a "I wouldn't be surprised if..." But I wouldn't be surprised if Sistani returns with clean hands when (if) al Sadr is killed to resume the throne of heir apparent of to the Shiite faction.

Did you not find it strange that Allawi should issue arrest orders against Chalabi and nephew Chalabi, making a political comeback impossible?


I don't find anything strange about anything since I stopped wearing my aluminum foil hat.

The Chalabi warrant is more suspect to me, but I do tend to see it as business (unfortunately) as usual during political in-fighting, not part of a bigger deal.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 7:02 AM

HJERMSTED


RE: John Kerry "flip-flopping" on the issue of Iraq...

The facts about the invasion of Iraq are out (spoilers ahead for Fox News fans):

Select to view spoiler:


DOH!!
NO connection between Iraq and Al Queda before the invasion as stated by the Bush administration.
NO weapons of mass destruction as stated by the Bush administration.



Support for the invasion of Iraq has dropped dramatically (as much as 25%!) so that now less than half of the American people support what Bush is doing over there.

Are we to believe that all of these citizens are "flip floppers" because they've changed their minds? Are politicians not allowed to change their minds? Must politicians be completely rigid in their beliefs for the course of their entire lives?

The whole "flip flopping" thing has no substance to it. It's just another Republican talking point that gets parroted over and over and over (by conservatives with microphones in front of them on their official network, Fox News). It actually means very little.

mattro

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 7:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Still, I wouldn't be surprised... and now, neither will you!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer,
We'll just have to do this the tedious way, then. I'm going to make a number of assumptions to speed things up. I'm going to assume you're familiar with or have access to the text of Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, comments by Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al regarding Iraq's WMD, Colin Powell's UN address, David Kay's final report (his final report, not 'the' final report), the Senate report and the 9/11 Commission report. I'm also going to assume you have sufficient memory of, or access to, news reporting from that time frame.

A 'yes' answer will also speed things up, a 'no' answer will take more of your time.
----------
1) Do you agree that the DIA, Office of Special Plans and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group answer to Rumsfeld?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not. A 'no' explanation also requires references to ORIGINAL documents only, with links. I'm not going to spend time addressing some flack's 'interpretations'.
----------
From the Senate Armed Services Committee
Quote:
MR. KAY: Senator Warner ... I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there..
Quote:
SEN. LEVIN: Dr. Kay, on the question of stockpiles, you have stated, I believe, that in your opinion Iraq did not have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in 2002. Is that correct?
MR. KAY: That's correct, Senator.
SEN. LEVIN: Do you have any evidence that they had any stockpiles,
large or small, in 2002?
MR. KAY: Simply have no evidence, Senator.
SEN. LEVIN: You have not uncovered any evidence of small stockpiles?
MR. KAY: We have not uncovered any small stockpiles, that's correct.

2) Do you accept David Kay's conclusion that Iraq had no large or small biological or chemical weapons stockpiles?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.

Since Iraq did not have existing nuclear weapons, the question was one of nuclear weapons programs rather than stockpiles.
Quote:
SEN. LEVIN: -- in your judgment, had Iraq reconstituted its nuclear weapon program, in the way you understand the word "reconstitute"?
MR. KAY: It was in the early stages of renovating the program,
building new buildings. It was not a reconstituted, full-blown nuclear program.
Quote:
SEN. ALLARD: Did they use the aluminum tubes at that point in time to enrich their uranium? Do we know --
MR. KAY: No, they did not. They relied on different processes.

3) Do you accept David Kay's conclusion that Iraq had no nuclear programs?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.
----------
Quote:
On October 4,2002, the NSC (Condoleezza Rice) sent a draft of a speech they were preparing for the President to deliver in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was draft six of the speech and contained the line, “and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa -an essential ingredient in the enrichment process.”
On October 5,2002, the ADDI .. asked the analysts to bring forward any issues that they thought should be addressed with the NSC. The ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq.
Based on the analyst’s comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy National Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, “remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory.”
The NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, “and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa.” Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.
The DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the “President should not be a fact witness on this issue,” because his analysts had told him the “reporting was weak.” The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.
Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 4,2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, “more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British.”

4) Do you agree that Bush had unambiguous information from the CIA the yellowcake/Niger claims were not supported?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.

IBID
5) Do you agree that Bush had unambiguous information from the CIA the yellowcake/Niger claims should not be made?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.

IBID
6) Do you agree this information was transmitted to Bush before his 2003 State of the Union Address?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
Quote:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

7) Do you agree that Bush brought up a reference to unsupported yellowcake/uranium claims in his 2003 State of the Union address by referring to BRITISH rather than US intelligence, by saying uranium rather than yellowcake, and by saying Africa rather than Niger?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.

8) Do you agree that Bush was aware that facts behind these claims were unsubstantiated by US intelligence, and that he was warned by the CIA in the past not to include them in his speeches?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.

9) Do you agree that Bush highlighted them as an issue in his State of the Union address, event though he knew they were unsupported?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.

(I know some if this is repetitive, I just want to try and cover as many angles up front as I can, so we don't go around and around these same issues later on.)
More later

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Rue,

Good tactic. I either have to write a masters thesis with volumes of cites to respond to your every point, in most cases trying to prove a negative, or you claim victory. But most of your points are not germaine to the original question.

Back to the Original Question: Did Bush know there were no WMD in Iraq and lie to the American people, prior to the beginning of the war, about Iraq possessing them?

So

1) not sure what this has to do with proving or disproving the OQ.

2 & 3)Yes, we all know this now. Bad intelligence, similar to the surprises of the revolution in Iran, the fall of the Soviet Union, the invasion of Kuwait, could easily be responsible for this. Note the CIA comment from Oct. 2002 you quoted "Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory.”

4 thru 9) So the whole argument is down to one sentence in the State of the Union address. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Not knowing what information the White House had from the British government, It's difficult to know why this line might have been included over the objections of the CIA.


But way back up to the original point. Somewhere in a statement of my beliefs about the war (in response to your question)I had the sentence, "Whether it was for a lie (WMD in Iraq) or not is still a matter of opinion." You decided to pick out that one sentence (much like you did the one in the State of the Union above)and responded that David Kay's opinion was better informed. I then asked when he had said anything about Bush lying, that being the topic of discussion, and you launched the same arguments I've heard 100s of times.

Sorry, but I have still not seen anything that proves to me that the president knew, prior to the war, that there were no WMD in Iraq, and lied about it.

Now, please give me your general response to my entire original statement.


"But, yes, it bothers me that anyone died, it bothers me that people are still dying. Whether it was for a lie or not is still a matter of opinion. I've been thoroughly propagandized by both sides of the argument and am planning to suspend judgement until I see something that proves it to ME, one way or the other. The fact that I don't believe as you do doesn't automatically mean I believe the other side's stance either.

I believe there is a possibility that Iraq can come out of this with a stable and reasonably representative government. I believe it will take a lot of work, and will probably cost more lives. I believe it is a worthwhile goal. I believe that until the U.N. is willing to take the risk of moving their folks back into Iraq to support the formation of such a government, that the CPA and the provisional government, supported by American arms to provide security, is their best bet.

I believe that some folks will make money off the whole thing, just as some were making money off the UNs "Oil for Food" programme. I don't believe that this invalidates the entire concept."



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 9:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, the line was included to reference BRITISH intelligence because then it could be factually true while still be misleading. This is straightforward evidence from original sources, so by just blowing this off I have a feeling you would never admit that the Adminstration was purposefully misleading the public no matter WHAT evidence was given. But having observed Rue's meticulous and extensive research, I have a feeling this is not the only point. Be prepared to blow off a few more. But alos realize that the more you rationalize, the more your credibility goes down.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 9:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, the line was included to reference BRITISH intelligence because then it could be factually true while still be misleading. This is straightforward evidence from original sources, so by just blowing this off I have a feeling you would never admit that the Adminstration was purposefully misleading the public. But having observed Rue's meticulous and extensive research, I have a feeling this is not the only point. Be prepared to blow off a few more. But alos realize that the more you rationalize, the more your credibility goes down.



Look. First of all, I noted in my original response to Rue that I had been propagandized by both sides, and had not seen proof either way to my satisfaction. If you, or Rue, believe Bush lied, that's fine, I wouldn't think of trying to prove otherwise to you. But don't burn me at the stake because I haven't converted.

It was a mistake on my part to even try to respond point by point to Rue's allegations. As noted, I've seen these all before, just as I've seen the defenses by the "real" Bushies. I find both generally self-serving, and get the same response (Blasphemer! How can you not see the Revealed Word!) from both sides when I challenge their dogma.

My original issue with Rue was that she wanted the Iraqis to govern their country immediately, and I wanted to know how this would work without the CPA, the interum government, and the US Military there to back them up. What I got back from her, and you, was (in cliff notes form)"Bush Lied!, Bremer's a dictator!, It's all about the oil!" etc. Along with voluminous quotes from everywhere in the world.

I'd really rather have had her opinion on what would be a good way to proceed from here to give the Iraqis some sort of decent country. I'm looking for discourse about this particular issue, not a rehash of arguments about things that happened in the past.

I now await Rue's remark that I'm dodging the issue again. I'll pre-emptively note that it's her issue, not mine.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:10 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


No he ain't smart, must be the president with the lowest IQ

Should make an eventful US election, Kerry is somewhat dull but looking better than Bush right now, although it's difficult to remove a current President

just did a search

Google = Bush + lies
Results 1 - 10 of about 2 MILLION !!

Enrun, World-Com, Cheney's cash, WMDs, job prospects and electronic manufacturing moving off to China...
..seems like Bush needs to do some work and fix those lies if he plans on getting those votes

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, out of curiosity, if the trail of events (that Bush repeatedly put a statement into his address that even the CIA couldn't back, but dodged responsibility for accuracy by tossing it onto the Brits) has not convinced you that he did this DELIBERATELY- i.e. it was not bad intelligence from the CIA or a mistake or slip of the tongue- what would it take to convince you that he lied? At what point would you be convinced? Could you EVER be convinced?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:41 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, out of curiosity, if the trail of events (that Bush repeatedly put a statement into his address that even the CIA couldn't back, but dodged responsibility for accuracy by tossing it onto the Brits) has not convinced you that he did this DELIBERATELY- i.e. it was not bad intelligence from the CIA or a mistake or slip of the tongue- what would it take to convince you that he lied? At what point would you be convinced? Could you EVER be convinced?


OK, but this is the last time.

I could be convinced by a senior intelligence official stating something to the effect of: "We told the President prior to the war that there were unequivocally no WMD in Iraq. and he later said there were.", assuming there was some sort of proof of this statement.

A successful impeachment would be pretty convincing, but I haven't even heard this being seriously proposed.

Confession? I'd believe that.

The whole "Yellowcake" thing is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. Any politician will use the information he has in a way most favorable to him. When I'm looking for a lie, I'm looking for the whole WMD caboodle.

As noted in another thread, I don't even really think it matters any more. The dead horse has been beat to a paste. I don't think there will ever be a resolution because both sides are too hardened in their positions. Nothing is ever going to convince you Bush didn't lie, and nothing is ever going to convince the Bushies he did. At this point I don't know, and don't much care any more, and both sides can at least agree to hate me as an unbeliver.

Please do not try to convert me any more. I feel about both sides the same way I feel about the folks that come to my door and want to bring me to Jesus, or whatever. I don't want to go.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You don't want people trying to bring you Jesus???? Actually, I LIKE these people coming to my door. I invite them in very nicely (if I have the time) and we have wonderful chats.

heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You don't want people trying to bring you Jesus???? Actually, I LIKE these people coming to my door. I invite them in very nicely (if I have the time) and we have wonderful chats.

heh heh heh


So you have a walk-in freezer in your basement too? Long pig - It tastes like chicken.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Oh, and one more thing on the "Yellowcake" McGuffin.

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

Come with me back...back in time...to right before the 2003 State of the Union Address...to the Oval Office in the White House, where an alternate time track is being created.

Bush: "I've changed my mind, Condi. Based on the shakiness of the information, I'm taking out the line, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Instead, I'll use this firm intelligence from the CIA, "The Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

Condi: "Sounds good, Sir."

As we move forward along this new timeline, where the only change was that line in the State of the Union Address, would we expect any difference in the events leading up to the war? Probably not.

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

Now, back again, to an even earlier point but the same location, where another alternate time line is created as Donald Rumsfeld bursts into the Oval Office.

Rummy: "Mister President, you have to see this! Our intelligence has just confirmed that Saddam has destroyed all his WMD. There are no longer any left in the whole country."

Bush: "Darn it, there goes my excuse for the war. Better call a press conference and break the bad news."

Condi: "Sounds good, Sir."

And how does this change subsequent events? Pretty much, I'd say.

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

The point of our little time travel excercise? Whether Bush did exaggerate the intelligence about african yellow-cake (or lie, if you insist), or not, it wouldn't have made any significant difference.

Only if he lied, or did not, about WMD as a whole, would history have changed.

BTW: Yes, with this post I am just trying to piss folks off.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 5:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer:

Oh no, I let them escape after about an hour! I think they put the mark of the devil on my door on their way out.

heh heh heh

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 13, 2004 9:09 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Oh Geezer, now really. Did you think that that one statement was all I was going to point out? I have barely begun.

What I will post (when I have more time than recently) is a long, long series of information and extended quotes, in context, not just about the yellowcake claims, and not just by Bush. It will outline the entire administration engaged in a 'pattern of deception'.

I see you understand the difficulty of 'proving a negative'. But out of curiosity, is it frustrating to be held to an impossible standard? Do you see the irony of your complaint, given Bush based his decision to go to war on Hussein being able to 'prove' there were no WMD?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Mon, November 25, 2024 12:12 - 4809 posts
Are we in WWIII yet?
Mon, November 25, 2024 11:46 - 19 posts
FEMA official blocked aid to Florida Trump homes
Mon, November 25, 2024 11:41 - 16 posts
More Cope: David Brooks and PBS are delusional...
Mon, November 25, 2024 11:40 - 2 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 11:35 - 131 posts
MAGA movement
Mon, November 25, 2024 11:33 - 16 posts
What's in a Ghost?
Mon, November 25, 2024 11:28 - 5 posts
It's religious bigotry to criticize this ?
Mon, November 25, 2024 11:25 - 22 posts
South Korea
Mon, November 25, 2024 11:09 - 8 posts
Mars: yes or no?
Mon, November 25, 2024 10:59 - 68 posts
Can there be 'good' laws?
Mon, November 25, 2024 10:48 - 23 posts
January 6th Commission investigating coup attempt. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, November 25, 2024 10:41 - 1041 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL