Confirmed: Final WMD report blames intelligence agencies

[BaliBabyDoc]

cnn (excerpts)

"I think questions had to be answered as to why we were so wrong," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a member of the commission. "We needed to have recommendations as to how to prevent something like this from ever happening again."

I know the answer to that question. Arrogance and ignorance concisely captures why war supporters were so wrong.

The commission, for instance, has reconsidered the issue of aluminum tubes. A National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in October 2002 said that most intelligence agencies believed that Iraq's "aggressive pursuit" of high-strength aluminum tubes provided "compelling evidence" that Saddam Hussein's regime was reconstituting its uranium enrichment effort and nuclear program.

I wonder what they consider "most intelligence agencies?" What are the odds that each one of these agencies was "sampling" the same sources?

In its report last summer, the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the Energy Department was more accurate in its assessment that Iraq sought the tubes for a conventional rocket program, not a nuclear program.

What the hell would nuclear experts know about how to enrich uranium?!

 

[imported_Condor]

Lets talk about anti-american liberals that have killed thousands because they give the enemy the hope in American weakness that keeps them fighting and killing long after they would have given up.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Arrogance and ignorance . . . the gifts that keep on giving.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, Condor. Let's not try to avoid this stuff in the future, let's just step in the same steaming pile over and over again in an effort to "support our troops"... Hell, with your attitude, we can be deployed in an occupation of major portions of the globe rather quickly,

"Anti-American Liberals"? Since when was pre-emptive war an American ideal? Particularly when based on opportunistic fearmongering and outright distortion in pursuit of a prepackaged agenda? I'll give you the Spanish American War, and our usual meddling in Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine, but when did we extend that to the rest of the world?

One of the concepts notably absent from the Bushista lexicon of "Liberty", "Free" & "Freedom" is the idea of Self-Determination of different peoples... It's been a keystone of the advocates of real freedom for hundreds of years. Why is that? Because it's ideologically opposed to the Neocon notion of American dominance and hegemony?

Of course they'll try to blame it on "faulty intelligence", BBD, it's their only course from which to save face. It also serves as a plausible excuse for transforming the CIA into just another agency of propaganda for the Republican Party... No more issues of fact finding, when Dubya or his heirs say "Find Me A Way", they'll just hop to it...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Since when was pre-emptive war an American ideal?

Immediately following 9/11. In every nook and cranny of our american society. But hey, why don't we allow our backbones to liquify even more and dredge up another Bush is teh evil thread and lay everything at his feet.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Since when was pre-emptive war an American ideal?

Immediately following 9/11. In every nook and cranny of our american society. But hey, why don't we allow our backbones to liquify even more and dredge up another Bush is teh evil thread and lay everything at his feet.

Pre-emption has its place. But it requires knowledge NOT fear of the unknown or BS agendas. I'm willing to wager a significant minority (if not majority) of "informed" opponents to Bush War 2003 would acknowledge that North Korea and possibly Iran represent growing threats to the world. Why? Preponderence of the evidence clearly points in that direction . . . unlike the "deaf/blind/mute" routine of the Bush administration's march to war.

Our country's problem isn't "liquified backbone" it's the absence or either lack of utility in gray matter at the top of the backbone.

 

[Jhhnn]

And, uhh, just what exactly did the Iraqi regime have to do with the tragic events of 9/11, Ozoned? Nothing? Or with ongoing terrorism aimed towards the US? None?

Your rather lame response pretty much proves my point.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Since when was pre-emptive war an American ideal?

Immediately following 9/11. In every nook and cranny of our american society.

Adapted from the sig file of: Ozoned

If it looks like horseshit, smells like horseshit, and tastes like horseshit,,,chances are that it is from the administration of George W. Bush.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Immediately following 9/11. In every nook and cranny of our american society. But hey, why don't we allow our backbones to liquify even more and dredge up another Bush is teh evil thread and lay everything at his feet.

I thought Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

[maddogchen]

I think I understand Ozoned's response. Jhnnn asks "Since when was pre-emptive war an American ideal?" And Ozoned responds that after 9/11 pre-emptive war became an American ideal. And Iraq is a result of a pre-emptive war.

Whats confusing about this? or did I misunderstand what Ozoned said?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I think I understand Ozoned's response. Jhnnn asks "Since when was pre-emptive war an American ideal?" And Ozoned responds that after 9/11 pre-emptive war became an American ideal. And Iraq is a result of a pre-emptive war.

Whats confusing about this? or did I misunderstand what Ozoned said?

No, you aren't confused, it's just the typical leftist twisting of what people say. Pre-emption of a danger came into play when we were attacked. Now this does not mean we can only "pre-emptively" attack those who attacked us - well... because that wouldn't be "pre-emptive" now would it - it'd be reactionary.
I find it interesting that the leftists love to bleat their little line about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11. It's like they don't understand that the WOT is not just Al Queda or the Taliban - it's terrorists or rogue states. Saddam's Iraq was one such entity that fit the bill and needed to be dealt with anyway due to the ongoing '91 war.

CsG

 

[kylebisme]

A preemptive strike, by definition, requires an imminent threat. Since Iraq was by no means an imminent threat, or attack was by no mean preemptive.

 

[NJDevil]

The Iraq war was preventive, not preemptive. Preemption would be, "the USSR is about to launch nukes at us, let's take out as many of their missiles as possible with a first strike." Prevention is more, "it's better to face the enemy now than in the future because it will be easier now before they get nukes, WMD's etc."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I think I understand Ozoned's response. Jhnnn asks "Since when was pre-emptive war an American ideal?" And Ozoned responds that after 9/11 pre-emptive war became an American ideal. And Iraq is a result of a pre-emptive war.

Whats confusing about this? or did I misunderstand what Ozoned said?

No, you aren't confused, it's just the typical leftist twisting of what people say. Pre-emption of a danger came into play when we were attacked. Now this does not mean we can only "pre-emptively" attack those who attacked us - well... because that wouldn't be "pre-emptive" now would it - it'd be reactionary.
I find it interesting that the leftists love to bleat their little line about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11. It's like they don't understand that the WOT is not just Al Queda or the Taliban - it's terrorists or rogue states. Saddam's Iraq was one such entity that fit the bill and needed to be dealt with anyway due to the ongoing '91 war.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
A preemptive strike, by definition, requires an imminent threat. Since Iraq was by no means an imminent threat, or attack was by no mean preemptive.

There was that imaginary and now they say never happened threat of WMD.

Then you have the above posters swearing that Saddam was the cause of 9-11 and not Bin Laden.

Between the two Lies, Historians are so overwhelmed with misinformation who knows how it will be written when we are all gone.

 

[arsbanned]

The thing the war cheerleaders here have failed to acknowledge is the fact that the reason for attacking Iraq was the threat of their WMD. That was the stated reason for this preemptive attack. It turns out this reason is completely invalid, which renders the war illegitimate.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it. CsG follows the Bushista non sequiter right down the line- including "pre-emptive war" against "rogue states" who had nothing to do with the situation we rightfully reacted against, 9/11. Why? Because they had WMD's that they "could" or "might" give to terrorist organizations with whom they were "linked"- at least in the Bush Admin's addling of the brains of a fair % of America.

And the reference to Iraq as unfinished business is revealing- it's obvious that the Neocons in Bush's father's Admin were terribly upset by his decision to not invade, and have carried a grudge ever since... But they couldn't sell it on that basis, they needed a reason, an excuse- 9/11 was that excuse.

The more that is said on the subject, the more the truth is revealed, even by those who have no idea what it is, or who would prefer to keep it hidden. CsG just acknowledged, in a backhanded way, that the reasons for invading weren't the real reasons, at all... and that it wasn't due to faulty intelligence, either... it was a 12 year old grudge match, a blood feud, a vendetta, made possible by events that could only be linked through very skillful agitprop... sold on the basis of deliberate distortion and fearmongering.

You too, prove my point, CsG, even though the chances of your actually figuring that out are almost nil....

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And the reference to Iraq as unfinished business is revealing- it's obvious that the Neocons in Bush's father's Admin were terribly upset by his decision to not invade, and have carried a grudge ever since... But they couldn't sell it on that basis, they needed a reason, an excuse- 9/11 was that excuse.

Pretty Ironic Quote

?Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.?


George Herbert Walker Bush
A World Transformed (1998)

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Pretty Ironic Quote

?Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.?


George Herbert Walker Bush
A World Transformed (1998)

I didn't know enough about politics when the first Bush was in power to really have an opinion, but over time I've discovered that while I really don't like his idea of government fiscal policy, I have a fair bit of respect for the first GB that is impossible to muster for his idiot son.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Pretty Ironic Quote

?Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.?


George Herbert Walker Bush
A World Transformed (1998)

I didn't know enough about politics when the first Bush was in power to really have an opinion, but over time I've discovered that while I really don't like his idea of government fiscal policy, I have a fair bit of respect for the first GB that is impossible to muster for his idiot son.

Exactly, as much as I didn't like GHWB, at LEAST he had a hint of wisdom.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Condor
Lets talk about anti-american liberals that have killed thousands because they give the enemy the hope in American weakness that keeps them fighting and killing long after they would have given up.

Anti-American liberals, huh? Well I am Republican and I believe this war was wrong.

I understand your point, but what do you expect us to do? I disagreed with the war before it started. If we had our way, there would have been zero casualties in Iraq. Your way has led to 1500, so I don't know how it is that WE have killed thousands, as you say.

 

[arsbanned]

Yes, I would absolutely concur. GHWB is a far better statesman than his son. It's incredible he could raise such an ignorant person.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And the reference to Iraq as unfinished business is revealing- it's obvious that the Neocons in Bush's father's Admin were terribly upset by his decision to not invade, and have carried a grudge ever since... But they couldn't sell it on that basis, they needed a reason, an excuse- 9/11 was that excuse.

There was definite disagreement between the Wolfowitz and Powell after the Gulf War ended. Frontline had a great show on this.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yes, I would absolutely concur. GHWB is a far better statesman than his son. It's incredible he could raise such an ignorant person.

I agree. Arrogance, I could see. Ignorance, I do not understand.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
The thing the war cheerleaders here have failed to acknowledge is the fact that the reason for attacking Iraq was the threat of their WMD. That was the stated reason for this preemptive attack. It turns out this reason is completely invalid, which renders the war illegitimate.

Originally ignored by: Bush apologists
"I think questions had to be answered as to why we were so wrong," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a member of the commission. "We needed to have recommendations as to how to prevent something like this from ever happening again."

What the hell is that leftist, anti-American, military-bashing cretin talking about?!

Here's a guess . . . there's absolutely NOTHING ideal about "pre-emption or prevention" if you don't know anything. Why? Well for decent, intelligent people morally questionable behavior (starting wars) requires a morally defensible reason (evidence of threat). It's too late for (evidence) to materialize that would justify Bush War 2003. Accordingly, the fallback position has become, "it doesn't matter." I assume they take this tack b/c you cannot be the good guy and do bad things for no reason.

I dangled "democracy" out there to see who would bite. Truth be told, they don't really believe democracy is a legitimate reason b/c we've piled up plenty of non-democratic allies since Bush slinked into office.

 

[fjord]

A National policy of pre-emptive agression is immoral, unethical, and completely opposite to the high ideals and principles on which the U.S. was founded on.

There is no justification. There is no rationalization. There is no exception.

Not before 9/11, and not after.

Even if the 9/11 terrorists had all been Iraqi citizens--

Predictable death and suffering by thousands of innocents in the case of war, precludes any moral or ethical persuit of such a policy.

Why did we get it wrong? Because the Bush administration is immoral and unethical, and we as a country are indifferent to such corruption, and some are even willing participants.

Where is the Christian ethic that the Bush administration loves to cite? Where was decency and morality when they were fradulently plagerizing and manufacturing bogus evidence, to sell a non-sequitor vengence in the name of God?

It was never there. It was--and is--fake, pseudo-Christianity; a total corruption of real Christian ethic.