* CONFIRMED * Pentagon Says NO Pre-War Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection.

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
My whole point here is that Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq, therefore he owns whatever happens there, be that positive or negative. Even Powell understood the concept of "you break it you buy it."

You have to also understand that despite everyone else's rhetoric - Clinton and the rest - no one else saw fit to order the invasion. Everyone was talking tough, but until Bush, no one decided it was worth punching that tar baby. So again, you have to wonder how serious they were. Obviously not very since they weren't willing to put boots on the ground in order to effect regime change.
Deal I totally agree with the part I bolded.
It was Bush?s decision to go to war and therefore he is the one responsible for the mess it has become.

My only contention is with the people who act as if Bush is the only person to ever claim Saddam was a threat or had WMD or had ties to terrorism.

Read the following quotes and tell me who said them and when:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

"..., intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

"...to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

?We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.?
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq is now significant where as before it was just an outpost in an area of Iraq that wasn't under Sadams control. Nice job Dub:laugh:

It's true.

Yet the only response I see presented is to simply walk away from it, or to "stay the course".

Therein lies the real problem, and one for which there doesn't seem to be a solution.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So there cruise missles and the 160,000 troops on the ground in 1998 dont count? Talk about wierd math!
Look obviously you don't even know the difference between war and not war, so I'm just going to cut my losses while I'm ahead.

Feel free to blame everyone other than Bush for invading Iraq, but you have to be a complete moron not to understand that while everyone prior to Bush managed to keep Saddam in his box via various military efforts, only Bush ordered a total invasion and occupation of Iraq.
You must be smoking some powerful stuff not to admit this fact. Feel free to live in your own finely-crafted version of reality though. Good luck with that.

Never disagreed with that *shrug*
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
My whole point here is that Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq, therefore he owns whatever happens there, be that positive or negative. Even Powell understood the concept of "you break it you buy it."

You have to also understand that despite everyone else's rhetoric - Clinton and the rest - no one else saw fit to order the invasion. Everyone was talking tough, but until Bush, no one decided it was worth punching that tar baby. So again, you have to wonder how serious they were. Obviously not very since they weren't willing to put boots on the ground in order to effect regime change.
Deal I totally agree with the part I bolded.
It was Bush?s decision to go to war and therefore he is the one responsible for the mess it has become.

My only contention is with the people who act as if Bush is the only person to ever claim Saddam was a threat or had WMD or had ties to terrorism.

Read the following quotes and tell me who said them and when:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

"..., intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

"...to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

?We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.?
This is exactly the sort of dishonesty that made you the target of such disdain. As has been pointed out dozens of times, those quotes generally fall into one of two categories: (1) spoken before Clinton's highly effective bombing campaign in 1998, or (2) spoken after being deceived by BushCo's cooked intel. (No, Congress did NOT see the exact same intel as Bush/Cheney/et al. Period.) That you continue to spout these quotes out of context only confirms your agenda is pointless partisan misdirection.

That Iraq had WMDs in 1998 is not in dispute, but it is completely irrelevant to BushCo's claims five years later. You're trying to rationalize Bush invading Germany to stop the Holocaust, citing quotes from Democrats from the early 1940's. Guess what? Things change. Insinuating otherwise is dishonest. The intel supporting anti-Iraq claims in 1998 is not the same as the intel of 2003. The Bush administration made dozens of claims that were not supported by the intel available in 2003. That is a fact. They misrepresented both the certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities -- "There is no doubt." -- and the extent of those capabilities. THEY LIED.

Finally, to preemptively squash the standard follow-up claiming bad intel, it's yet another empty diversion. Not only did BushCo claims not match the intel available, but the intel was incomplete precisely because Bush was in such a rush to invade. We finally had U.N. inspectors back in Iraq, gathering current information. Bush effectively sent them packing before they could finish the job. Why? My belief is he did it precisely because the longer they were there, the more intel they got that contradicted his lies about Iraq's WMDs. The last thing in the world BushCo wanted was better intel. They wanted a full-scale shootin' war, and they were going to have it, truth be damned.
 
Jan 9, 2007
180
0
71
My whole point here is that Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq, therefore he owns whatever happens there, be that positive or negative. Even Powell understood the concept of "you break it you buy it."

Funny thing is, that after Powell left office, he has publicly stated time and time again that standing in front of the UN stating the case for the war was a black mark on his record. He has also been taken to task for it by everyone under the sun. I wonder just how much evidence it will take for some people to "get it" that the push for the war was based upon fabrication of evidence, lies and PR stage drama.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This is exactly the sort of dishonesty that made you the target of such disdain. As has been pointed out dozens of times, those quotes generally fall into one of two categories: (1) spoken before Clinton's highly effective bombing campaign in 1998, or (2) spoken after being deceived by BushCo's cooked intel. (No, Congress did NOT see the exact same intel as Bush/Cheney/et al. Period.) That you continue to spout these quotes out of context only confirms your agenda is pointless partisan misdirection.
What is the factual basis of that statement?
How do we know that Clinton?s 1998 bombing campaign did anything at all?

There were no weapons inspectors in the country for four years after the campaign stopped. How can you be so sure that his campaign did anything at all, besides distract attention from impeachment.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This is exactly the sort of dishonesty that made you the target of such disdain. As has been pointed out dozens of times, those quotes generally fall into one of two categories: (1) spoken before Clinton's highly effective bombing campaign in 1998, or (2) spoken after being deceived by BushCo's cooked intel. (No, Congress did NOT see the exact same intel as Bush/Cheney/et al. Period.) That you continue to spout these quotes out of context only confirms your agenda is pointless partisan misdirection.
What is the factual basis of that statement?
How do we know that Clinton?s 1998 bombing campaign did anything at all?

There were no weapons inspectors in the country for four years after the campaign stopped. How can you be so sure that his campaign did anything at all, besides distract attention from impeachment.

Wow! Flashbacks to 1998!
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Stop filibustering ... Despite regime change being our country's specific policy, we all know that Bush invaded Iraq and occupied it. Nobody else. Bush. Congress delegated their war powers to Bush and he made the decision to go to war. We all know this to be fact.

Next, I asked a very simple question: whether Bush should be held responsible (in general, not in a legal sense) for his actions with regards to the invasion and subsequent occupation? Yes or no?
Yes Bush is responsible. He is the one who made the decision to start the war.
We aren?t arguing that point though.

Speak for yourself, PJ. But not for blackangst1. He disagrees with you.

blackangst1 - "*For starting a war? Per H.R.4655 - The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 he didnt start it. "

 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There were no weapons inspectors in the country for four years after the campaign stopped. How can you be so sure that his campaign did anything at all, besides distract attention from impeachment.

Well, did the U.S. find WMD's in Iraq when Bush sent the troops in?

No?

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There were no weapons inspectors in the country for four years after the campaign stopped. How can you be so sure that his campaign did anything at all, besides distract attention from impeachment.
Well, did the U.S. find WMD's in Iraq when Bush sent the troops in?

No?
You are right about that, but I don't we have had any proof at all the he 1998 bombings were the reason for that. For all we know Saddam could have gotten rid of his WMD before then.

Even today there are many unanswered questions, mainly, what happened to all the WMD??
He claimed to have destroyed them all, but there are not records showing that actually happened. The whole thing is FUBAR.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This is exactly the sort of dishonesty that made you the target of such disdain. As has been pointed out dozens of times, those quotes generally fall into one of two categories: (1) spoken before Clinton's highly effective bombing campaign in 1998, or (2) spoken after being deceived by BushCo's cooked intel. (No, Congress did NOT see the exact same intel as Bush/Cheney/et al. Period.) That you continue to spout these quotes out of context only confirms your agenda is pointless partisan misdirection.

That Iraq had WMDs in 1998 is not in dispute, but it is completely irrelevant to BushCo's claims five years later. You're trying to rationalize Bush invading Germany to stop the Holocaust, citing quotes from Democrats from the early 1940's. Guess what? Things change. Insinuating otherwise is dishonest. The intel supporting anti-Iraq claims in 1998 is not the same as the intel of 2003. The Bush administration made dozens of claims that were not supported by the intel available in 2003. That is a fact. They misrepresented both the certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities -- "There is no doubt." -- and the extent of those capabilities. THEY LIED.

Finally, to preemptively squash the standard follow-up claiming bad intel, it's yet another empty diversion. Not only did BushCo claims not match the intel available, but the intel was incomplete precisely because Bush was in such a rush to invade. We finally had U.N. inspectors back in Iraq, gathering current information. Bush effectively sent them packing before they could finish the job. Why? My belief is he did it precisely because the longer they were there, the more intel they got that contradicted his lies about Iraq's WMDs. The last thing in the world BushCo wanted was better intel. They wanted a full-scale shootin' war, and they were going to have it, truth be damned.
What is the factual basis of that statement?
How do we know that Clinton?s 1998 bombing campaign did anything at all?

There were no weapons inspectors in the country for four years after the campaign stopped. How can you be so sure that his campaign did anything at all, besides distract attention from impeachment.
ROFL. That's a lovely diversion, but it evades the points I raised. You presented those quotes dishonestly -- again -- without critical context. You are trying to cover BushCo deception by insinuating things that were once true must be true forever, and by reversing cause and effect, misrepresenting Democrats duped by BushCo's fairy tale intel as evidence the intel was accurate.

I do appreciate you corroborating two of my points, however. By your own admission, there was uncertainty about exactly how effective Clinton's bombing campaign was. This suggests that if one could get you to remove your partisan blinders momentarily, you would agree BushCo was lying when claiming certain knowledge about Iraq's current WMD capabilities. Statements like "There is no doubt." and "These are facts, not assertions." were lies.

You've also confirmed why forcing the Blix inspection team out of Iraq was irresponsible. We did not have current information about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilites. Blix & co. were getting this information. They should have been allowed to finish the job, though that would have denied the neo-cons the big war they craved. Bummer. Sucks to be a war-monger once your boogeyman is exposed.

Finally, I love the blatant hypocrisy of your last sentence. You blame Clinton for not taking care of Iraq, yet you simultaneously blame him for doing so. That's pretty much the definition of partisan shilling. It must just kill you Clinton-haters to know he handled Iraq infinitely better than Bush 43, without squandering hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars. One of the reasons Clinton looks so good today is because GWB is such a global failure.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

George W Bush, 5/24/05
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Equinox
My whole point here is that Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq, therefore he owns whatever happens there, be that positive or negative. Even Powell understood the concept of "you break it you buy it."
Funny thing is, that after Powell left office, he has publicly stated time and time again that standing in front of the UN stating the case for the war was a black mark on his record. He has also been taken to task for it by everyone under the sun. I wonder just how much evidence it will take for some people to "get it" that the push for the war was based upon fabrication of evidence, lies and PR stage drama.
Some people will literally never get it; it's called cognitive dissonance. Their brains simply will not allow it because their faith is too deep to be challenged by reality.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
It could be argued that prior to the actual start of war on Iraq, that the US was engaged in a diplomatic effort to persuade Iraq to disarm.

We all know this was a sham.

If the alternatives being presented to a "rogue state" are "tow the UN line or face war" then it can be argued that creating doubt that the "face war" option is actually real harms the diplomatic "stance", and creates the third option, "pretend to comply because war isn't really coming".

Which does bear an uncanny resemblance to Iraq's actual policy during those nine months.

This argument fails in this specific case because the reality based community believed that the US was never in fact "not" going to war. But if you don't believe that, the argument holds water, and weakening the "credible threat" by domestic "questioning" is indeed weakening the nation's foreign policy stance.

So rather than rehashing the well-reported and well-known failure of the US media to ask the hard questions during that nine months, where is the reportage on the broken way the US "negotiates" with rogue states? (North Korea, Iran)

Or the morally bankrupt way that the US misuses and abuses the UN? (And it's not an excuse here, just like it wasn't in primary school, to say "Everyone else does it!")

Because if you can continue to make the argument that unilateral "do what we say or we bomb you" is a legitimate position in 21st century diplomacy, then those who question the "bomb you" option can continue to be painted as traitors.

 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

George W Bush, 5/24/05

Think how many people were killed by Dub's propaganda catapults. They are the real WMDs.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Equinox
My whole point here is that Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq, therefore he owns whatever happens there, be that positive or negative. Even Powell understood the concept of "you break it you buy it."
Funny thing is, that after Powell left office, he has publicly stated time and time again that standing in front of the UN stating the case for the war was a black mark on his record. He has also been taken to task for it by everyone under the sun. I wonder just how much evidence it will take for some people to "get it" that the push for the war was based upon fabrication of evidence, lies and PR stage drama.
Some people will literally never get it; it's called cognitive dissonance. Their brains simply will not allow it because their faith is too deep to be challenged by reality.

Truer words were never spoken. Lets not forget it applies to everyone...even you.
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Richard Perle was just on CNN claiming there was a direct connection with Saddam and "the Al Qaida of Osama Bin Ladin".

I guess Cheney and Perle are the only 2 Dicks left who still spew this lie.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Gaard
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

George W Bush, 5/24/05

Think how many people were killed by Dub's propaganda catapults. They are the real WMDs.
Weapon of Mindless Destruction?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Gaard
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

George W Bush, 5/24/05

Think how many people were killed by Dub's propaganda catapults. They are the real WMDs.
Weapon of Mindless Destruction?
Words of Mass Deception?

What, Me Despicable?

Where's My Daddy? :p
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Truer words were never spoken. Lets not forget it applies to everyone...even you.
BS, it doesn't apply to everyone, because some people are open-minded enough to change their minds when they hear a compelling argument.

Problem is - I've yet to hear a compelling argument that demonstrates an Iraq link to terror that was sufficient to warrant invasion and occupation. Everything points to the fact that whatever links existed were tenuous at best. Let's face reality here, the fundamental decision to go into Iraq was flawed and we knew it was flawed even back in '02 - '03.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Truer words were never spoken. Lets not forget it applies to everyone...even you.
BS, it doesn't apply to everyone, because some people are open-minded enough to change their minds when they hear a compelling argument.

Problem is - I've yet to hear a compelling argument that demonstrates an Iraq link to terror that was sufficient to warrant invasion and occupation. Everything points to the fact that whatever links existed were tenuous at best. Let's face reality here, the fundamental decision to go into Iraq was flawed and we knew it was flawed even back in '02 - '03.

Oh ok. If it makes you feel better then so be it. Doesnt really matter does it? Well then leave me behind as Im not riding on this bandwagon. Im still on the bandwagon most of you were on in 1990-2000. *shrug*

I love America...we can all disagree! And I will quote a Chinese proverb I've quoted before: The blind see darkness at noon.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Truer words were never spoken. Lets not forget it applies to everyone...even you.
BS, it doesn't apply to everyone, because some people are open-minded enough to change their minds when they hear a compelling argument.

Problem is - I've yet to hear a compelling argument that demonstrates an Iraq link to terror that was sufficient to warrant invasion and occupation. Everything points to the fact that whatever links existed were tenuous at best. Let's face reality here, the fundamental decision to go into Iraq was flawed and we knew it was flawed even back in '02 - '03.
Oh ok. If it makes you feel better then so be it. Doesnt really matter does it? Well then leave me behind as Im not riding on this bandwagon. Im still on the bandwagon most of you were on in 1990-2000. *shrug*

I love America...we can all disagree! And I will quote a Chinese proverb I've quoted before: The blind see darkness at noon.
As I said, cognitive dissonance. You are unable to reconcile your faith with facts and reality so you dismiss them. You epitomize your Chinese proverb.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
And I will quote a Chinese proverb I've quoted before: The blind see darkness at noon.
Didn't your mom warn you, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind? Too bad you didn't listen. :laugh:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
And I will quote a Chinese proverb I've quoted before: The blind see darkness at noon.
Didn't your mom warned you, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind? Too bad you didn't listen. :laugh:

Sadly, I ran away too often to listen to mom.

Never really listened anyway.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Are we still talking about al-Qaeda and Iraq pre-war?