Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on November 10, 2005, 12:26:33 AM
-
Since we are feeling all political tonite I figure I'd post my favorite article of the week.
COMMENTARY
December 2005
Who Is Lying About Iraq?
Norman Podhoretz
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.
What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.
The main “lie” that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary “lie” that Iraq under Saddam’s regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even “imminent”) possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us and/or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.
This entire scenario of purported deceit has been given a new lease on life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby stands accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a grand jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration had “outed” Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press was to retaliate against Wilson for having “debunked” (in his words) “the lies that led to war.”
Now, as it happens, Libby was not charged with having outed Plame but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she worked for the CIA. Moreover, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who brought the indictment against him, made a point of emphasizing that
[t]his indictment is not about the war. This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person—a person, Mr. Libby—lied or not.
No matter. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, spoke for a host of other opponents of the war in insisting that
[t]his case is bigger than the leak of classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the President.
Yet even stipulating—which I do only for the sake of argument—that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
Blix now claims that he was only being “cautious” here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush administration “misled itself” in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.
So, once again, did the British, the French, and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s reading of the satellite photos he presented to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as Secretary of State. But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:
I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.
Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was convinced:
People say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.
In explaining its dissent on Iraq’s nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about
Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program.
But, according to Wilkerson,
The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?
Contd here
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html
-
It's a good feeling, you know, to shoot a bad guy. Something you Democrats would never understand. Americans... we're homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys.
-
GUN... Gun... gun...
That's what's called an editorial.
Wherein, the author gets to, basically go off. Lose his ****, as it were.
Much the same as we do, here, every night.
So.... BOOM! You wanna give us a sampling of Podhoretz as if we haven't been choking on the guy?
It is based on him that I have been lobbying for looser restrictions on the meaning of "criminally insane."
The dude is basically: Neocon Godfather.
His stuff aint exactly panning out (ie. his grand ideas are going to **** and beyond), and him and his buds are lining up for their walking papers...
So what do we really give a damn about them?
Ultimately?
What do we need to learn from him other than how not to go about things?
-
Is there a time warp or something?
December 2005?!
Isn't it only November 2005?
-
Don't get Nash all fired up this early in the morning! He might spill his Cafe' Moca latee on this months copy of "O"
TJ
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Is there a time warp or something?
December 2005?!
Isn't it only November 2005?
I caught that also. :huh
-
Doesnt matter to me who or if anyone was lying.
I've said all along the only reason I needed to be given we were going into Iraq was "Because its Tuesday"
Was something we needed to deal with in a definitive manner at some point in taime anyway. And something that should have been dealt with in GW1.
Far as Im concerned. The bombing of the Barracks in SA and the assassination attempt on former pres Bush Sr. After the cease fire agreement were in themselves an act of war.
-
The sadman had WMD's in the past and would probly have em again if left alone to run his country. Having him gone and a democratic republic in the center of the middle east is a good thing...
The cost in U.S. lives has been very small... the amount of terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 has been nil...
hard core terrorists are lining up for the snipers sights every day in iraq...
The moral of the soldiers is good...
All braches of the service are exceeding their recruiting quotas except the army which is only off a few %.
It is expensive tho... but... it will get paid off... unlike some social program that will grow into a multi billion dollar a year debacle for eternity. It will be good when we can get out.
so yeah... I am not upset about throwing out the sadman. All the hand wringing and crocadile tears and mocha spitting from little socialists who have no stake in America is just predictable blather.
lazs
-
I fail to see how this thread is any different than someone just posting links and not posting any personal views on the subject.
-SW
-
I would just like to point out that the morale of the british soldiers hasn't been too outstanding.
Lately, they've been investigating every single shooting by a soldier as Murder.
-
great article gun, thanks.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
great article gun, thanks.
WHAT MY GAWD MAN ITS AN EDITORIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Didn't you know all editorials are wrong...go stick you head in the sand....quick.
[reality]
yea I liked it to, it really puts a great perspective on events that are fogged by time[/reality]
-
You just got to wonder why GW hasn't nailed them on it. I just don't get this President. I don't understand what he's afraid of.
April 26, 2004
Saddam's WMD have been found.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
Among Kay's revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks:
A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?
"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"
New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.
A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."
"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."
"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."
Just because we didn't find a ready Nuke doesn't mean there were not weapons there.
One of the things I heard while watching Kay's testimony to congress was his statement that Iraq was far more dangerous than we even thought. The fact was that Saddam was losing his grip on his associates. Especially his sons. It was his fear that some of these scientist would start to freelance. I.E. another Khan network. As always, these statements were completely ignored by the Left-Stream media. (I think this was during a QA session as it's not in his opening statement and I don't have time to look for it now.)
Anyway, here is his Statement to Congress. Read it and tell me you would have rather done nothing.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/David-Kay-Iraq-WMD2oct03.htm
Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them:
1. Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any ongoing prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.
2. In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, ongoing activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1,000 kilometers, well in excess of the U.N. permitted range of 150 kilometers. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.
3. In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine ongoing research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.
-
I seem to remember a certain Tony Blair saying that Saddam possessed WMD that could be deployed within 45 minutes.
"Plans and advance design work" equates to a 45 minute readiness to deploy?
"Reference strains" equates to a weaponized WMD with a 45 minute readiness to deploy?
"...prison laboratory complex that MAY have been used for human testing..." equates to a 45 minute readiness to deploy?
"Continuing covert capability to manufacture [missile] fuel propellant... maintained at least until the end of 2001" equates to a 45 minute readiness to deploy in 2003?
Aspirations and intentions are not what we went to war over. That was never the casus belli. It was the possession of weaponized WMD, that was field ready that was deemed to be the immediate threat.
The goal posts have now shifted. Or rather been dismantled, packed and shipped to opposite ends of the solar system.
-
To lie means to say something one knows to be false.
Here is a lie:
We know where they (WMD) are.
Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003 on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
They did not know where the WMD was located...if so, they would have found it in the place that they looked for it. If he had said, "we think we know where the WMD are", then he would have been truthful.
-
I belive a lie is defined as KNOWINGLY making a statement that is false. Please provide proof of the knowingly part. This is not to say I am all for the parties involved. Just for clarification.
-
I made a decision over two years ago. I decided then to invest my support behind the decision to use armed forces to clear Iraq of a terrorist regime and to pave the way for moderate arabs to reclaim Iraq and propell it out of tryanny into something hopefully better. I also decided that once I made the commitment I would not change my mind, barring evidence of conspiracy.
My commitment stands firm.
cromaw, you are quick to confuse being wrong with lying. you should be required to have evidence of lying before making the accusation.
-
Originally posted by Denny_Crane!
It's a good feeling, you know, to shoot a bad guy. Something you Democrats would never understand. Americans... we're homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys.
So just who, exactly, have you shot?
Shooting your loadinto a towel thinking about Chris Hannity does not count :rofl
-
From FoxNews:
"Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest.
"... white evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest (Read as: The Brainwashed) "
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
From FoxNews:
"... white evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest (Read as: The Brainwashed) "
This is why the Left will continue to lose national elections. Typical condescending, elitist attitude.
You probably read and believe all those left-wing kook site don't you. Talk about Brainwashed!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I seem to remember a certain Tony Blair saying that Saddam possessed WMD that could be deployed within 45 minutes.
Don't recall anyone from this government making this statement. Take that up with Mr. Blair.
It was the possession of weaponized WMD, that was field ready that was deemed to be the immediate threat.
Never heard it quantified quite that way either.
Consider these shocking facts:
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
So tell me how 1.7 tons of enriched uranium is not a threat? Wrap some of that around some C4 and tell me that is not a WMD? Just the panic that this would cause would be devastating to any major city.
Was that a possibility? Maybe, maybe not. I know one thing for sure. It's not a possibility now.
-
Firstly, radioactive sources capable of being used in dirty bombs can be found in any University - I used plenty myself as part of my Physics degree. They are also common in hospitals. I would suggest that many of the '1,000' sources removed from Iraq fall into this category.
Secondly, nuclear material is easily traced unlike common explosives. If Saddam had chosen to supply an insurgent group with material for a dirty bomb, he would have effectively signed his own death warrant. The man may have been a genocidal maniac, but he wasn't suicidal.
Thirdly, the Uranium found was low enriched material. It was obtained from the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, which had been annually inspected by the IAEA for several years. Their audit essentially consisted of an annual material stock check and they were aware of its existance.
It was removed to prevent proliferation, amid reports of looting of the facility after Iraq fell. You might argue that prior to the coalition invading, it was far more secure than after, hence its removal from the country.
Sarin gas does not require an ellaborate manufacturing facility. I seem to remember the incident you refer to was the detonation of an old artillery shell.
Given that Iraq once had significant amounts of chemical agent during the Iran-Iraq war, its hardly surprising there was some left-over. How does 1500 gallons and a few rusting shells compare to the huge amount Iraq once had, and then subsequently was forced to destroy?
Maybe your definition of WMD differs from mine - and I think my goal post comment is still relevant. Mass destruction isn't disruption of the rush hour or inconveniencing commuters - its murder en masse. A nuclear explosion in a city centre or a dispersal of chemical agents that maims and kills large numbers of the population. Where is the evidence that this could be achieved?
Importantly, and I think this is where your misconception lies, there has to be a method of deployment. Tony Blair may not be your representative of executive power, but he was a key supporter of Bush. Bush relied on him towing the line and by having a significant international ally, it lent his arguments a more international and balanced gravitas. He publically quoted from a dossier that stated:
...chemical and biological munitions "could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes."
The WMD argument for war was flimsy and has not been substanciated since. Even the staunchest of proponents of this argument now maintain they were just wrong, but no lies were told.
Except those that would maintain the possession of a can of mace spray was a material breach of the regulations Iraq was party to concerning WMD control...
-
Gee. I wonder what all that 'Gulf Syndrome' stuff was that's been steadily killing our troops that served in GW1 was...
Nah, they never had WMD.
GHWB sold Saddam Kool Aid, not nerve gas.
-
No one lied about WMD, some people are just trying to re-write history to win the next election.
-
You mean the syndrome that many veterans blame on the government(s) for pumping them full of anti-bodies or the military for the extensive use of depleted uranium rounds? Sounds like GWS isn't exactly fully understood or attributed to one cause or another.
As for GW1, I seem to remember rather alot of disarmanent happening in the 10 years afterwards.
We know they HAD WMD. We bloody gave them the capability to deploy it 20 years ago. The question was did they have it 2003...
-
the WMD's are buried in the desert, saddam will use them as a plea bargain to save his life.
-
Dowding, That was a nice little "story" you told there about the nuclear materials being tracable. Perhaps you could lend your expertise to the Russians who I understand are having trouble maintaining control or even proper inventory over their nuclear aresenal. I suppose it should be quite easy given it's all so easily traced, right?
-
Take any sample of radioactive material and you can analyse it to the nth degree. You can work out how it was stored and the nature of the storage materials - even the origin of the materials by geographical region.
Mass spectrometry yields information about sample age and impurity content, as well as isotropic and mass ratio information. You can use this to effectively work out where the material came from.
Western governments have developed highly effective methods of preserving conventional forensic evidence (fibres, finger prints etc) even in the face of an atomic blast. They are using all these techniques to slowly get all nuclear material back into secure Russian hands.
So, if Saddam had given material to a nutcase group and they used it, the trail would lead straight back to him. And I don't think we need to elaborate on the response.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So, if Saddam had given material to a nutcase group and they used it, the trail would lead straight back to him. And I don't think we need to elaborate on the response.
the UN would send him a nasty letter?
-
You would give recipe for newest WMDs and sell him some from your own storages like you did earlier?
-
The knowledge that someone such as Saddam was in the process of aquiring, developing, or even just thinking of WMD's, is in my opinion more than enough justification to go to war.
One of the tenets of "The Art of War," is to take the fight to the enemy.
GW did just that.
A majority of the terrorist who would like to do us harm are lining up in Iraq to be sent to meet their maker.
And before anyone makes the comment that the war in no way affects me personally, I have several relatives currently in country, on the front lines.
-
Originally posted by mrshiver
The knowledge that someone such as Saddam was in the process of aquiring, developing, or even just thinking of WMD's, is in my opinion more than enough justification to go to war.
Really? hope you are ready for the draft, cause there are lots of countries out there doing the exact same thing. Iran, North Korea for easy examples, So you saying we are going there next?
-
Uh exactly what would have been the "correct" thing to do then Raider? Cough up something constructive.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Uh exactly what would have been the "correct" thing to do then Raider? Cough up something constructive.
Correct regarding what situation Mav? Iraq? Iran? Syria? North Korea? Indonesia? Phillipenes? Afghanistan? Bin laden? Omar? Jordan?
Be specific and I will answer specifically. Overall, not sure but what we are doing is not working. Torturing people in foriegn countries so they bypass OUR laws is not American. I know war is horrible and people die but this was bad planning.
-
Why did Colin Powell resign?
That is a man of integrity and honor. I know why he did. He hurt because he lied to the UN. Check statements by his Chief of staff. You die hard republicans are no better than the far right. It's obvious what took place. Read Bob Woodwards book and tell me Iraq wasnt a target after 9/11...
-
Raider on your first point do you have ANY shred of proof of this besides an un-confirmed times article.
On your second Colin Powel said from the begining he only wanted to serve on term.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Raider on your first point do you have ANY shred of proof of this besides an un-confirmed times article.
On your second Colin Powel said from the begining he only wanted to serve on term.
I have no idea what you are asking for the 1st one.
Powell has tip-toed around since leaving. You ask your self why. I know , but then again I read what his chief of staff has said. Perhaps you should. Has a lot to do with crappy intelligence. Jeez bro, they took intelligence from a guy named "CURVEBALL". what does it take to realize they were only going after stuff that made their case? Where is the intel that they got wrong? Oh that rights its everywhere.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I have no idea what you are asking for the 1st one.
Powell has tip-toed around since leaving. You ask your self why. I know , but then again I read what his chief of staff has said. Perhaps you should. Has a lot to do with crappy intelligence. Jeez bro, they took intelligence from a guy named "CURVEBALL". what does it take to realize they were only going after stuff that made their case? Where is the intel that they got wrong? Oh that rights its everywhere.
my first point is your reference to torturing at secret bases. I want to know how many aledged terrorists we've tortured, where they are, and when they've been there.
On Powell I will agree with you that the state dept. intell service was one of the few that got it right from the begining. BUT, that really doesnt mean squat when EVERYONE else on point is saying they are wrong and have been saying it for a long time. My point about this thread is the history revisionists that have been slowly getting louder over the years re-writing history and they "bush lied" crowd. Don't think that this opinion piece is about Bush's recent speech when he took a jab at the "bush lied" crowed. It was in fact written before it and probably caused Bush's reaction.....about time if you ask me. Either way re-read the peice I posted, it's pretty hard to dispute.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
my first point is your reference to torturing at secret bases. I want to know how many aledged terrorists we've tortured, where they are, and when they've been there.
On Powell I will agree with you that the state dept. intell service was one of the few that got it right from the begining. BUT, that really doesnt mean squat when EVERYONE else on point is saying they are wrong and have been saying it for a long time. My point about this thread is the history revisionists that have been slowly getting louder over the years re-writing history and they "bush lied" crowd. Don't think that this opinion piece is about Bush's recent speech when he took a jab at the "bush lied" crowed. It was in fact written before it and probably caused Bush's reaction.....about time if you ask me. Either way re-read the peice I posted, it's pretty hard to dispute.
ok first one is easy. Egypt admits 70 prisoners have been moved there by the U.S. Why are they in Egypt if not to avoid our laws? Same goes for a dozen other countries.
your right, 1 dissenting opinion shouldnt void information, however it was not just 1 opinion. There is a lot of information that points in the oppostite of everything the administration was saying. Especially Dick Cheney. I could point out hours of quotes of "slam dunks" and Iraq-al-qaidai connections that were given, when in fact this intelligence was questionable at its best.
I dont think bush lied. I think he had it in for Iraq and that swayed how he gathered information. Plain and simple, he wanted the war and they made it happen.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
ok first one is easy. Egypt admits 70 prisoners have been moved there by the U.S. Why are they in Egypt if not to avoid our laws? Same goes for a dozen other countries.
your right, 1 dissenting opinion shouldnt void information, however it was not just 1 opinion. There is a lot of information that points in the oppostite of everything the administration was saying. Especially Dick Cheney. I could point out hours of quotes of "slam dunks" and Iraq-al-qaidai connections that were given, when in fact this intelligence was questionable at its best.
I dont think bush lied. I think he had it in for Iraq and that swayed how he gathered information. Plain and simple, he wanted the war and they made it happen.
It was questionable at best after the fact. The problem here is information itself even after the fact isn't reliable. A reporting agency could have reported those 70 prisoners going to Egypt to be tortured when they could have left of the handy little tidbit that they were all egyption citizens or they were wanted there in connection with other crimes. The fact that the "secret prisons" article was leaked is criminal at best.
There are many people out there trying to rewrite history when the truth is history writes itself (or is sometimes written by the winner).
and since I didn't get a chance to respond to O'riely's comments in the other thread before the lock here's my chance.
I agree with what he said. SF mayer (iirc) basically said the measure probably wont hold up in court but it's the message they want to send that matters.
SO here's what I gather, SF doesn't care about the constitution or the federal govt. that's established by it. BO's comments are spot on. This would be no worse than if a small town in Alabama legalized slavery of black people again. Or a town in Utah saying that the city govt will now be based off of Morman religion. It doesn't seem at all extreme the comments he made.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It was questionable at best after the fact. The problem here is information itself even after the fact isn't reliable. A reporting agency could have reported those 70 prisoners going to Egypt to be tortured when they could have left of the handy little tidbit that they were all egyption citizens or they were wanted there in connection with other crimes. The fact that the "secret prisons" article was leaked is criminal at best.
There are many people out there trying to rewrite history when the truth is history writes itself (or is sometimes written by the winner).
All I see are exuses. We screwed the pooch on iraq, Time to step up or sit down..
-
Originally posted by Raider179
All I see are exuses. We screwed the pooch on iraq, Time to step up or sit down..
you speak in past tenses......you realize there are troops still their still fighting right?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you speak in past tenses......you realize there are troops still their still fighting right?
Oh ok lets just forget all responsibility. This is just the start of whats coming.
And yes I speak in past tenses, He who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it....
guns you know whats gonna happen, why wont you say it.