‘Building momentum for regime change’: Rumsfeld’s secret memos

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/16/building-momentum-for-regime-change-rumsfelds-secret-memos/

The talking points suggest that Rumsfeld and his team were grappling with a tricky issue: “How [to] start?” the war. In other words, what would the pretext be? Various scenarios were outlined: “US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax attacks?” reads one of them. “Dispute over WMD inspections?” reads another. “Start now thinking about inspection demands.”

How this is not bigger news is beyond me, after 3 tours I want answers on why the US thought it was worth the blood and treasure. Republicans defending this are also asinine, and they should quite frankly be ashamed of themselves saying "We are the party supporting the troops"
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Well this isn't a surprise to those without partisan ties. What will come of this? Nothing. What does that say about us as a society? Everything.
 

SaurusX

Senior member
Nov 13, 2012
993
0
41
From MSNBC? I'm shocked. How is it that so many liberals can be so viscerally opposed to Fox News, yet lap up every bit of drivel from MSNBC? Two sides of the same coin.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
From MSNBC? I'm shocked. How is it that so many liberals can be so viscerally opposed to Fox News, yet lap up every bit of drivel from MSNBC? Two sides of the same coin.

And exactly how does this change the facts of the story?
 

SaurusX

Senior member
Nov 13, 2012
993
0
41
And exactly how does this change the facts of the story?

You mean the story about events now a decade old and far past the point of relevance? You're right, I guess it doesn't. It does spotlight the left's enduring obsession with all things Bush, though. Kind of like that lady in the debates who asked Romney, "Are you like George Bush and how are you not like George Bush?" Take a little advice from yourselves and moveon.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
MSNBC? ugh to be honest i trust them as much as Fox news. so err..not really.

saying that is ANYONE SURPRISED? show of hands! nobody? ohh..



not that it matters. its way past time anyone can do anything. just another reason to not trust the government.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
From MSNBC? I'm shocked. How is it that so many liberals can be so viscerally opposed to Fox News, yet lap up every bit of drivel from MSNBC? Two sides of the same coin.

Anything like this would not be covered on Fox, however had they published a story then I would have linked it.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
You mean the story about events now a decade old and far past the point of relevance? You're right, I guess it doesn't. It does spotlight the left's enduring obsession with all things Bush, though. Kind of like that lady in the debates who asked Romney, "Are you like George Bush and how are you not like George Bush?" Take a little advice from yourselves and moveon.

No. I will not move on, this is an extremely serious issue. This should be addressed by Congress, it was a disastrous decision with absolutely no justification what so ever. Hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands dead Iraqis, unintended foreign policy consequences, future disabled veteran liabilities; I could go on and on.

This is an order of magnitude of greater relevancy than Benghazi which if what you are saying, should just be put aside and they (Republicans) should move on. It's not about Bush, it's about his entire administration namely Rumsfeld.

How are we as a supposedly free society and leaders of the free world supposed to be the role model if we do not correct past mistakes?
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Given that congress blessed the actions; why would a newer session of Congress want to look into such actions.

Gentlemen's agreement - similar to that ex-presidents to not criticize the sitting president
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Given that congress blessed the actions; why would a newer session of congress want to look into such actions.

Gentlemen's agreement - similar to that ex-presidents to not criticize the sitting president

Because congress was unaware of all the details? Several congressmen made obvious mentions of that fact prior to the authorization. Not enough to sway a vote due to the popularity of aggression after 9/11, but it was indeed brought up and no I am not even including Ron Paul in that list since no one cares.
 

bignateyk

Lifer
Apr 22, 2002
11,288
7
0
From MSNBC? I'm shocked. How is it that so many liberals can be so viscerally opposed to Fox News, yet lap up every bit of drivel from MSNBC? Two sides of the same coin.

The documents are right there, unless you're suggesting MSNBC is making those up too.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,423
7,484
136
Bush and company wanted a war in Iraq... we know that, everyone knows that. Is this memo to suggest that they had intention to use straight up lies? To make false connections?

Iraq:
32,223 wounded
4,804 killed

That tally was sometime last year. If we invaded due to horrible intel on WMD, that's one thing - but if the administration was caught actively creating lies - then that's a whole new level. That's criminal charges and prosecution.

If 4 Americans matter in Benghazi, then 37,000+ Americans still matter today. The difference between Bush negligently or purposefully getting them killed and wounded matters to me, and it should matter to you.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,669
2,423
126
One major decision Obama has done that never got any fanfare-or even any acknowlegement from the GOP neo-cons/teabaggers who villify every move he makes-was not to do anything to activiely bring back up the start of Bush's Iraq war, how it diverted our efforts in Afganistan and perhaps most importantly, why Rumsfeld or any others didn't face any international prosecution for warcrimes. History will judge Obama made the right decision for the US but history will also judge Bush and his cohorts very harshly.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
You mean the story about events now a decade old and far past the point of relevance? You're right, I guess it doesn't. It does spotlight the left's enduring obsession with all things Bush, though. Kind of like that lady in the debates who asked Romney, "Are you like George Bush and how are you not like George Bush?" Take a little advice from yourselves and moveon.

The right is well on its way to having an obsession with all things Obama.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
You mean the story about events now a decade old and far past the point of relevance? You're right, I guess it doesn't. It does spotlight the left's enduring obsession with all things Bush, though. Kind of like that lady in the debates who asked Romney, "Are you like George Bush and how are you not like George Bush?" Take a little advice from yourselves and moveon.


"But but but the the left"

This horseshit mentality has us divided against ourselves. You're so wrapped up in railing against the other party that you excuse the blatant atrocity that ensued. You need to check your heart brother. Hold each to the same measure.

I said it in another thread and your responses are the same . "If bob robbed a bank and got away with it is it okay for you to do it too"? This is not a partisan issue no matter how much you want to make it one.

How many US soldiers died because of this? How about civilians? Instability in Iraq? What does this make us look like to the world community? These are the questions you should be asking and holding our leaders to task for but you and millions of others are stuck cheerleading.
 

SaurusX

Senior member
Nov 13, 2012
993
0
41
"But but but the the left"

This horseshit mentality has us divided against ourselves. You're so wrapped up in railing against the other party that you excuse the blatant atrocity that ensued. You need to check your heart brother. Hold each to the same measure.

To this day I believe that going to Iraq was the correct course of action. Yes, you read that right. Let the gasps commence and pick your jaw up off the floor. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of the United States and in the climate immediately following 9-11 the danger he represented was impossible to ignore. Everyone and I mean everyone in the gov was in agreement as is evident by the swift course of actions that lead to the war. It was a smooth ride and Democrats cannot wash their hands of their complicity at this point. That's why you don't see any new inquisitions being started, because everyone's dirty laundry would come out.

Now, was the evidence wrong? Duh, of course it was. Being wrong when you think you're telling the truth is not lying no matter how one wants to twist it. He shouldn't have played a game at the high stakes table if he didn't want to lose, though. Now, ask yourself is Iraq better off now that Saddam is gone? Okay, now be truthful with your answer. A sadistic dictator is gone that suppressed the Shiite majority of his country and represented a constant menace to the region and beyond. Iraq is on the road to prosperity and its people and ours are better off for it. So yes, it was worth it, imo.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
The media is as liberal as the corporate overlords who own them are. MSNBC had the fascistic jingoistic music and crying eagles BS while the laughable lies were repeated and the Iraq 1 and 2 wars began. While in the real world millions marched in the streets worldwide. The corporate media is a 20th century relic.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,423
7,484
136
Now, was the evidence wrong? Duh, of course it was. Being wrong when you think you're telling the truth is not lying no matter how one wants to twist it.

The whole point of the memo is that it suggests they weren't just wrong, but actively engaged in the creation of those lies. It's a fairly dangerous assertion.
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,137
382
126
Right or wrong they thought of Saddam as the next Hitler. They wanted to 'nip this one in the bud' so to speak.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Right or wrong they thought of Saddam as the next Hitler. They wanted to 'nip this one in the bud' so to speak.

Yea so with their rose nippers they cut off their finger and bled over a trillion dollars and the lives of thousands of Americans.

Oh well though. As long as football still has flyovers anything we do with our military must be a good thing.

I would ultimately prefer that we wait until there are acts of aggression against the USA before the governments decides to spend money and American lives changing regimes. It seems that the government uses the military for interests outside of that though, and it's shameful.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
To this day I believe that going to Iraq was the correct course of action. Yes, you read that right. Let the gasps commence and pick your jaw up off the floor. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of the United States and in the climate immediately following 9-11 the danger he represented was impossible to ignore. Everyone and I mean everyone in the gov was in agreement as is evident by the swift course of actions that lead to the war. It was a smooth ride and Democrats cannot wash their hands of their complicity at this point. That's why you don't see any new inquisitions being started, because everyone's dirty laundry would come out.

Now, was the evidence wrong? Duh, of course it was. Being wrong when you think you're telling the truth is not lying no matter how one wants to twist it. He shouldn't have played a game at the high stakes table if he didn't want to lose, though. Now, ask yourself is Iraq better off now that Saddam is gone? Okay, now be truthful with your answer. A sadistic dictator is gone that suppressed the Shiite majority of his country and represented a constant menace to the region and beyond. Iraq is on the road to prosperity and its people and ours are better off for it. So yes, it was worth it, imo.

What threat were they towards the US? What was actually gained? What money have we earned back? What exactly does "Iraq is on the road to prosperity and its people and ours are better off for it." mean? They are nowhere near stable and will never be given their demographics.

The US should never do what you just said, ever. Saying things such as this would lead people to believe we need to send troops to die in central Africa, North Korea, Cuba, etc. It is an extremely dangerous road to be on and the only reason we have not done more is the severe lack of will from the American people and we just can't afford it.

No one disagreed with Afghanistan, even the deity Ron Paul agreed. However it sounds as though you think all of congress wanted war in Iraq. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Tons of congressmen and senators questioned it, and a lot of the ones who finally signed off were lead to believe Saddam was going to invade the United States and kill us all.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Because congress was unaware of all the details? Several congressmen made obvious mentions of that fact prior to the authorization. Not enough to sway a vote due to the popularity of aggression after 9/11, but it was indeed brought up and no I am not even including Ron Paul in that list since no one cares.

This has been known for years. Clinton's big bugaboo were terrorists organizations, especially Bin Laden's crew. When Bush came in the first thing he did was make Saddam first priority. Hell we discussed Rumsfeld on these forums many years past, and Congress didn't know anything? Hardly. What had Obama and the Dems done since then? Nothing, and they aren't going to. The Reps started it and the Dems are content to pretend it never happened.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
To this day I believe that going to Iraq was the correct course of action. Yes, you read that right. Let the gasps commence and pick your jaw up off the floor. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of the United States and in the climate immediately following 9-11 the danger he represented was impossible to ignore. Everyone and I mean everyone in the gov was in agreement as is evident by the swift course of actions that lead to the war. It was a smooth ride and Democrats cannot wash their hands of their complicity at this point. That's why you don't see any new inquisitions being started, because everyone's dirty laundry would come out.

Now, was the evidence wrong? Duh, of course it was. Being wrong when you think you're telling the truth is not lying no matter how one wants to twist it. He shouldn't have played a game at the high stakes table if he didn't want to lose, though. Now, ask yourself is Iraq better off now that Saddam is gone? Okay, now be truthful with your answer. A sadistic dictator is gone that suppressed the Shiite majority of his country and represented a constant menace to the region and beyond. Iraq is on the road to prosperity and its people and ours are better off for it. So yes, it was worth it, imo.

A war was wanted. The only way Saddam MIGHT have avoided one is if he could prove a negative, that is that he didn't have any WMDs. Considering that was impossible the war was going to happen. It was the hearts desire of those scumbags of the Bush Era, and they still play people for fools.

Aluminum tubes? Lies.
WMDs around Tikrit? Lies.
Terrorist training and ties to Al Qaeda? Lies.

Three strikes.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,592
474
126
A war was wanted. The only way Saddam MIGHT have avoided one is if he could prove a negative, that is that he didn't have any WMDs. Considering that was impossible the war was going to happen. It was the hearts desire of those scumbags of the Bush Era, and they still play people for fools.

Aluminum tubes? Lies.
WMDs around Tikrit? Lies.
Terrorist training and ties to Al Qaeda? Lies.

Three strikes.

Some people also like to suggest that Iraq sent stockpiles of chemical weapons to Syria... laughable on the face of it, and a fourth strike.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/syria-iraq-wmd-meme/

Third, the Iraqi Ba&#8217;athists and Syrian Ba&#8217;athists are far from allies. Syria&#8217;s Allawites are minority Shiites and proxies to Iraq&#8217;s arch-enemy Iran. They fought on the allied side against Iraq during Desert Storm. Why would Saddam turn over his deadliest weapons Iran&#8217;s best friend in the region? Remember: Saddam says he made his WMD threats to cower the Iranians.

Fourth, from a U.S. military perspective, the transfer would have been impossible to hide. I worked at U.S. Central Command&#8217;s Mideast headquarters before, during, and after the invasion, which gave me a good understanding of what was going on at the time. The region was blanketed by U.S. military assets. Operation Enduring Freedom was in full swing in Afghanistan, and Operations Northern and Southern Watch were still in place over Iraq. If something moved &#8212; like, say a convoy of Winnebagos of Death heading for Syria &#8212; it could be detected and killed.

It's a popular idea though because even people will grasp at any straw to back up the idiot policy that split the U.S. focus on Afghanistan and delayed the justice that eventually came to Bin Laden.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
And exactly how does this change the facts of the story?

Which facts exactly?

When you see a phrase like this:

The talking points suggest..

You're not looking at facts, you're looking at someone's subjective opinion. Someone's 'interpretation'.

I think I'm capable of understanding the written word without someone trying to tell me what it 'really' means.

After reading through the notes several times it seems to me they're so skeletal drawing any firm conclusions other than war with Iraq was contemplated back in Nov '01 is risky.

Fern