9-11 6 years of BS, Lies, Death and out of control spending...

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Wreckem

BULLSHIT: The intel was spotty at best. It existed, so that much is true, but there is no WAY it was good enough to justify a massive military invasion of another sovereign country. That's the kind of stuff you're absolutely sure about, and it was quite clear that the intelligence was NOT that positive. Which is fine, that's how it was presented...using it as justification for invading Iraq was the mistake.

As spotty as it was, its the same thing, the Brits, French, and Italians had. Every intel agency in the world, as well as the UN though Saddam had WMDs. This fact cant be disputed because its on record.

Intelligence is a pretty fluid thing, it's not a black and white type of knowledge. There are levels of confidence in everything, and having information about something does not mean James Bond snuck into the bad guy's hideout and took pictures with his sunglasses camera. Intelligence agencies are pretty careful to differentiate between "We have information suggesting Saddam has WMDs" and "Saddam has WMDs"...a point lost on most members of the public (and most politicians too, for that matter).

No, the fact of the matter is this. The WHOLE WORLD THOUGHT(as in the knew, even though it turned out to be untrue) Saddam had WMDs. They did not however agree with the US on terms of War. They thought it could be settled by diplomatic means.

Dont try to rewrite stuff thats on record. France et al were all convinced Iraq had WMDs. This point cannot be disputed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, CC- no Admin spokesperson could even say "Iraq" at the time w/o saying "Saddam Osama Al Quaeda terror Iraq" in the same paragraph, usually in the same sentence... not to mention the "links to Al Qaeda" catchphrase, along with the constant din about giving WMD's to terrorists and Cheney's claim about Iraq's "reconstituted" nuclear program and uranium from Africa...

The conflation and repetition were a monument to the art of propaganda, and to the art of plausible (well, semi-plausible) deniability... All in all, one of the greatest snowjobs of the modern era. Hell, the simple fact that some will still defend it indicates just how good it was...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Wreckem

BULLSHIT: The intel was spotty at best. It existed, so that much is true, but there is no WAY it was good enough to justify a massive military invasion of another sovereign country. That's the kind of stuff you're absolutely sure about, and it was quite clear that the intelligence was NOT that positive. Which is fine, that's how it was presented...using it as justification for invading Iraq was the mistake.

As spotty as it was, its the same thing, the Brits, French, and Italians had. Every intel agency in the world, as well as the UN though Saddam had WMDs. This fact cant be disputed because its on record.

Intelligence is a pretty fluid thing, it's not a black and white type of knowledge. There are levels of confidence in everything, and having information about something does not mean James Bond snuck into the bad guy's hideout and took pictures with his sunglasses camera. Intelligence agencies are pretty careful to differentiate between "We have information suggesting Saddam has WMDs" and "Saddam has WMDs"...a point lost on most members of the public (and most politicians too, for that matter).

No, the fact of the matter is this. The WHOLE WORLD THOUGHT(as in the knew, even though it turned out to be untrue) Saddam had WMDs. They did not however agree with the US on terms of War. They thought it could be settled by diplomatic means.

Dont try to rewrite stuff thats on record. France et al were all convinced Iraq had WMDs. This point cannot be disputed.

Of course it can be disputed, because when you say "France" or "THE WHOLE WORLD" you're talking about politicians on TV...nobody talked to the people who actually knew anything.

Let's face it, at the end of the day Saddam did not have WMDs (or at least it's reasonable to suggest that). Now since "everyone" was convinced that he did, clearly there was a breakdown in the chain between reality and opinion somewhere. Everyone can't be blameless here, or else the common perception would have matched reality. Knowing what I do, I'd say it's way more likely that that breakdown happened at the political level, not the intelligence agency level. I could be wrong, but clearly SOMEONE put a square peg into a round hole.

 

[Jhhnn]

One of the most remarkable bits of obfuscation about Iraq and the lack of intelligence wrt WMD's is the constant and obvious substitution of the term "believed" for the correct term, which is "suspected"... Only in rightwing circles are the terms synonymous, the whole argument being one of those faith-based things, anyway...

There was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim, only the lack of evidence wrt the destruction of such munitions. That real difference never made any real difference to Bushfans, however... they "believed", and still do...

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
One of the most remarkable bits of obfuscation about Iraq and the lack of intelligence wrt WMD's is the constant and obvious substitution of the term "believed" for the correct term, which is "suspected"... Only in rightwing circles are the terms synonymous, the whole argument being one of those faith-based things, anyway...

There was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim, only the lack of evidence wrt the destruction of such munitions. That real difference never made any real difference to Bushfans, however... they "believed", and still do...

This makes total sense!

I mean, why in the world would the hugely effective UN pass 14 resolutions if they didn't really believe Saddam either had or was pursuing WMD? No need to inspect him if they knew his actions were pure and trustworthy...

1990, 2000, 2010, 2020...it doesn't matter when he would eventually acquire them. The point is that everyone knew he was still pursuing and interested in acquiring WMD, and also knew what the consequences would be if that loon actually came into possession of something with serious punch and/or delivery capability.

The simple fact is that the UN wanted more and more time to do what the UN does best, waste time at the expense of others/others down the road, and after 9/11, the US wasn't going to sit and dick around like that.

When are people inside and outside of the US going to get it through their heads that 9/11 was a wakeup call that ignoring problems doesn't mean they don't end up happening???

Chuck

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Chucky2 takes it to the next level- not only did they "believe", they just "Knew", honest- some kind of psychic power, I guess...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: ericlp
Hahaha, very funny... Ask bush...

You know, all the libs have always assumed that Bush would somehow tie Saddam to Sept 11.

In fact, they believed it so much that they overlook a key sentence in his speech on January 28, 2003 in which he stated:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

Now unless I am reading that wrong, Bush has actually stated the contrary when it came to Saddam being involved in 9/11.

yes this is a common problem among the left in this country. They keep pushing the Bush tied Saddam to 9-11 line. The simple fact is they will never find Bush saying Saddam was behind 9-11. Only that Saddam and Iraq plays into the War on Terror.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Just think, we have another 15yrs left +...... :roll:

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Chucky2 takes it to the next level- not only did they "believe", they just "Knew", honest- some kind of psychic power, I guess...

So what you're saying is the vaunted UN is even more useless than they appear to be in that they passed 14 resolutions because they trusted Saddam, didn't really think he'd pursue WMD ever again, he's a nice guy...they just passed them because Hey, what else would they have to do? It's not like Darfur or anything was blowing up....oh wait...

You cannot have it both ways: Either the controlling UN nations actually believe Saddam was a credible threat and those 14 resolutions were actually needed (even though Saddam knew pre-Bush2 that the UN didn't have any real nuts unless the US decided to take action), or the UN passed 14 resolutions just for fun and they thought Saddam was just a super good dude who made a small little one time mistake with Kuwait...

Which is it?

Chuck

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I wonder how many of the naysayers about WMDs would have bet big money, BEFORE we invaded Iraq, that there were no WMDs? So many of them pontificate as if they have such conviction now using all that brilliant 20/20 hindsight. I wonder what their conviction would've been back then and how absolutely sure they were that WMDs did not exist?

Eh, who cares though? You can't change the past, can you?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Chucky2 takes it to the next level- not only did they "believe", they just "Knew", honest- some kind of psychic power, I guess...

So what you're saying is the vaunted UN is even more useless than they appear to be in that they passed 14 resolutions because they trusted Saddam, didn't really think he'd pursue WMD ever again, he's a nice guy...they just passed them because Hey, what else would they have to do? It's not like Darfur or anything was blowing up....oh wait...

You cannot have it both ways: Either the controlling UN nations actually believe Saddam was a credible threat and those 14 resolutions were actually needed (even though Saddam knew pre-Bush2 that the UN didn't have any real nuts unless the US decided to take action), or the UN passed 14 resolutions just for fun and they thought Saddam was just a super good dude who made a small little one time mistake with Kuwait...

Which is it?

Chuck

Doesn't matter. Even if Saddam had acquired those "WMD's," they were not a threat to the USA.

And even if they were, and we are really stretching now, the administration's botching of the invasion and occupation were nothing short of rediculous.

Not to mention, after 9/11, the timing of the invasion was nothing short of stupid. The last thing you want to do in starting off the "war on terror," is give the enemy more ammo by invading another Muslim country.

 

[Jhhnn]

The most telling part of it all, chucky2, is that the UN refused to sanction the invasion of Iraq, unlike their stance in GW1...

If nothing else, that tells us what all the sanctions really meant...

And, uhh, the only pontificating done at the time, TLC, was from the Bush Admin and their allies... neither of which were about to let Blix have the months he needed to finish his task- that would have meant no smacking the tarbaby- couldn't have that, now could we?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I wonder how many of the naysayers about WMDs would have bet big money, BEFORE we invaded Iraq

Well, Rumsfled did say "we know where they are."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I wonder how many of the naysayers about WMDs would have bet big money, BEFORE we invaded Iraq

Well, Rumsfled did say "we know where they are."

Did you put your money down? Vegas probably had good odds. You can bet on just about anything there.

Anyone in here get rich from betting on Saddam having no WMDs?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I wonder how many of the naysayers about WMDs would have bet big money, BEFORE we invaded Iraq

Well, Rumsfled did say "we know where they are."

Did you put your money down? Vegas probably had good odds. You can bet on just about anything there.

Anyone in here get rich from betting on Saddam having no WMDs?

No, I am an American taxpayer, like most here, and we all got poor because Bush and Co. bet our money on Saddam having them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I wonder how many of the naysayers about WMDs would have bet big money, BEFORE we invaded Iraq

Well, Rumsfled did say "we know where they are."

Did you put your money down? Vegas probably had good odds. You can bet on just about anything there.

Anyone in here get rich from betting on Saddam having no WMDs?

No, I am an American taxpayer, like most here, and we all got poor because Bush and Co. bet our money on Saddam having them.

So you didn't have any convictions back then about WMDs and neglected to place any bets. Not surpirsing. It's always easy to talk a big game using 20/20 hindsight.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I wonder how many of the naysayers about WMDs would have bet big money, BEFORE we invaded Iraq

Well, Rumsfled did say "we know where they are."

Did you put your money down? Vegas probably had good odds. You can bet on just about anything there.

Anyone in here get rich from betting on Saddam having no WMDs?

No, I am an American taxpayer, like most here, and we all got poor because Bush and Co. bet our money on Saddam having them.

So you didn't have any convictions back then about WMDs and neglected to place any bets. Not surpirsing. It's always easy to talk a big game using 20/20 hindsight.

As I said above...

Originally posted by: bamacre
Doesn't matter. Even if Saddam had acquired those "WMD's," they were not a threat to the USA.

And even if they were, and we are really stretching now, the administration's botching of the invasion and occupation were nothing short of rediculous.

Not to mention, after 9/11, the timing of the invasion was nothing short of stupid. The last thing you want to do in starting off the "war on terror," is give the enemy more ammo by invading another Muslim country.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The most telling part of it all, chucky2, is that the UN refused to sanction the invasion of Iraq, unlike their stance in GW1...

If nothing else, that tells us what all the sanctions really meant...

And, uhh, the only pontificating done at the time, TLC, was from the Bush Admin and their allies... neither of which were about to let Blix have the months he needed to finish his task- that would have meant no smacking the tarbaby- couldn't have that, now could we?

You think that's surprising or something? Look how long Darfur has been a going on, and the UN is just now starting in Oct. going to start doing something about it. I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but you have to wonder if the UN just waited until there was no one left to kill/suffer there, and then decided Hey, going in now will work, it's quiet now. You think France with Billions in Iraq deals going on, a not great unemployment rate, and a very large Muslim population, was going to enthusiastically support going into Iraq unless the oil flow was threated as in GW1 or a mushroom cloud was over some city? You think China or Russia want the US to succeed in Iraq and therefore endorse going in?

The fact is that there should have been 0 UN resolutions in Iraq after GW1, not 14.

THe fact is that Saddam himself could have stopped that invasion at any time by complying, instead he wanted to play games and thumb his nose at the UN - again for the umpteenth time - and wait for another meaningless resolution that the UN wouldn't ever enforce.

And now we're back to: In a new post-9/11 world, why would you ever expect the US to d1ck around with some sh1tpot dictator like Saddam, who you (and the rest of the Western world) knows is a POS and will at some point in the future either help and/or directly try to F you in some serious way?

I will totally admit that the way we went into Iraq was really too hasty...we should have had 300k+ troops, and a massive infrastructure package - with the people power to install it - in place before ever going in.

That way the UN could feel all gooey that The Blixer was going to find the centrifuge burried in the scientists rose garden and whatever else is hidden over there we'll never find...then they could pat themselves on the back while the warmongering crazy Americans enforced our will on another country... :roll:

Chuck

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It doesn't matter if they were a threat or not. IF Saddam had them, he wasn't supposed to. IF he had them that was reason enough for invasion. Since practically everyone believed he had them at the time it was reason for an invasion.

I understand people are bitter NOW after years of copious cackling from all sides over the years about how Saddam had WMDs, but it's a bit too late. Get over it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It doesn't matter if they were a threat or not. IF Saddam had them, he wasn't supposed to. IF he had them that was reason enough for invasion.

No. No, it wasn't. And many, many people said the same thing before we invaded.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It doesn't matter if they were a threat or not. IF Saddam had them, he wasn't supposed to. IF he had them that was reason enough for invasion.

No. No, it wasn't. And many, many people said the same thing before we invaded.

That's great they said that. They were wrong. Plainly and obviously wrong, since we are there.

 

[Jhhnn]

What a tool, TLC.

Obviously, you didn't bet the farm on there being WMD's, either, so you're merely engaging in the usual duhversion...

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What a tool, TLC.

Obviously, you didn't bet the farm on there being WMD's, either, so you're merely engaging in the usual duhversion...

The people who supported this war and still can't acknowledge it was a huge mistake need to hang on to some thread of justification for sending thousands of US soldiers to their deaths FOR NOTHING.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It doesn't matter if they were a threat or not. IF Saddam had them, he wasn't supposed to. IF he had them that was reason enough for invasion.

No. No, it wasn't. And many, many people said the same thing before we invaded.

That's great they said that. They were wrong. Plainly and obviously wrong, since we are there.

I think the sane people know who was wrong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What a tool, TLC.

Obviously, you didn't bet the farm on there being WMD's, either, so you're merely engaging in the usual duhversion...

No, I didn't bet either John. Then again, I don't whine constantly about the lack of WMDs either like you and so many others here who have their heads stuck in their...erm...past.