• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraq war double standards

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Carlis
Originally posted by: Harvey
Carlis -- You're two weeks late for an April Fools joke post. If you really believe that garbage you posted, invest in a spell checker and some history lessons. You've failed dismally at both. :roll:

Do you spell foreign languages perfect?

As for the subject I do find it a bit strange that so many americans supported the war and now dont stand for it.

Because most people (especially here in P&N) dont believe in history of the Iraqi situation until after 2000. They conveniently leave out 1992-2000.

Welcome to P&N 🙂

And you conveniently leave out the fact that nobody was stupid enough to invade and try to occupy Iraq before 2002. Prior to which, Saddam was a problem, but a managable problem. Now, we've got a complete clusterfsck on our hands, thousands of dead soldiers, hundreds of billions of dollars thrown down a hole. I mean, need I go on?
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When large numbers of sick people gather they become a mob, a robotic entity that can be manipulated by pulling its strings. Mobs obey mechanical laws that can be understood and used by cleaver emotionally dead people. The mob psychosis always wears off with time. People wake up counting backward, I will now forget, I will now forget. Then the psychosis waits like a virus for the next outbreak.

Sometimes you have this knack to use 500 words to get across simple 5 word thoughts - you know what to say but always find a way to do it poetically - and it gives me a laugh. Its probably due to the fact the very same mob mentality you speak of also eludes your benevolent logic in this forum. You could explain it to them until the next century and they'd only look at you and say they do not understand. I bet a majority of the readers here missed the whole point and that is why nobody quoted it. Blessed are the poor in spirit.
 
Originally posted by: Carlis
Do you spell foreign languages perfect?
Sorry. You didn't tell us English isn't your first language, but if you have an English word processor or even an e-mail program, you have a a spell checker at your fingertips. 🙂
As for the subject I do find it a bit strange that so many americans supported the war and now dont stand for it.
Then, we get back to my first reply. You've missed a lot of the facts and history behind the war. Cliffs:

Bush and company LIED to Congress, the American people and the world about every lame excuse he offered for starting the war.
  • The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  • Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  • There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  • There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  • There were no long range rockets.
  • There were no WMD's.
They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
  • They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

    The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Cheney hasn't lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda since... umm.. a few days ago.
Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link as latest Pentagon report

Last Update: Apr 6, 2007 1:36 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon are offering conflicting views about whether al-Qaida had links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Cheney continues to insist there is a connection but a declassified Defense Department report cites more evidence that Saddam's regime did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Speaking to radio host Rush Limbaugh, Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces. He says terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned Nine-Eleven.

But the Pentagon report released Thursday says seized documents, along with interrogations of Saddam and two of his former aides, confirm that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The 9/11 Commission report also found no evidence of a connection.
The Bushwhackos' last six years of criminal lies and pathetic excuses are no explanation or justification for over 3,200 dead American troops, tens of thousands of wounded, scarred and disabled for life, hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and displaced innocent Iraqi civilians or the waste of what will probably be trillions of dollars of debt our great grandchildren will still be paying off long after we're gone from this world, all for their WAR OF DECEIT AND DECEPTION. :thumbsdown: 🙁 :thumbsdown:
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Blackaigst1---who asks--Yeah but who gave out the cherry picked intel in the mid and late 90's? Thats who Im gunning for personally.

Well your answer is again Cheney and Rummy--who in the early 1980's convinced Saddam to invest in WMD---and arranged for the purchase---and at the conclusion of Gulf war 1 no one was sure if Saddam had indeed destroyed them as agreed---but according to his ill fated son in laws during the 1990's, they told and confirmed to the CIA that indeed they were destroyed after the son in laws briefly defected to Jordan.---again the difference between raw and filtered CIA files.

My best guess is that Saddam never revealed it either or his neighbors might think Iraq weak and ripe for the picking---but Rummy had to know in 2002 as he had access to all CIA files. And then when the WMD failed to surface---they made Tenant the scapegoat---leaving Rummy, Cheney , and the neocons otherwise free to independently bungle the Iraqi occupation.

If that is true, which of course its not without evidence, I'd be the first to send THEM to Iraq.

/cheer for speculation
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Carlis
Do you spell foreign languages perfect?
Sorry. You didn't tell us English isn't your first language, but if you have an English word processor or even an e-mail program, you have a a spell checker at your fingertips. 🙂
As for the subject I do find it a bit strange that so many americans supported the war and now dont stand for it.
Then, we get back to my first reply. You've missed a lot of the facts and history behind the war. Cliffs:

Bush and company LIED to Congress, the American people and the world about every lame excuse he offered for starting the war.
  • The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  • Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  • There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  • There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  • There were no long range rockets.
  • There were no WMD's.
They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
  • They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

    The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Cheney hasn't lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda since... umm.. a few days ago.
Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link as latest Pentagon report

Last Update: Apr 6, 2007 1:36 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon are offering conflicting views about whether al-Qaida had links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Cheney continues to insist there is a connection but a declassified Defense Department report cites more evidence that Saddam's regime did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Speaking to radio host Rush Limbaugh, Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces. He says terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned Nine-Eleven.

But the Pentagon report released Thursday says seized documents, along with interrogations of Saddam and two of his former aides, confirm that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The 9/11 Commission report also found no evidence of a connection.
The Bushwhackos' last six years of criminal lies and pathetic excuses are no explanation or justification for over 3,200 dead American troops, tens of thousands of wounded, scarred and disabled for life, hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and displaced innocent Iraqi civilians or the waste of what will probably be trillions of dollars of debt our great grandchildren will still be paying off long after we're gone from this world, all for their WAR OF DECEIT AND DECEPTION. :thumbsdown: 🙁 :thumbsdown:

Perhaps your ewyes glazed over at reading this:
Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces. He says terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned Nine-Eleven.

What part of others slipped your mind? Talk about cherry picked.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Carlis

I know the WMD's was a factor when waging this war but I was under the impression that the cruelty of the regiem and lack of democracy in Iraq were equally important arguments.

But then I followed this debate from outside of america.

Still, america reelected GWB in 2004 roughly one and a half year after the invasion presumably knowing Sadam had no WMD.

It seems to me that the general lack of results in getting Iraq on its feet and going out of there with a victory has had more effect on opinions than GWB lying about those WMD's.

Welcome to P&N.

The reason Bush got elected and re-elected was because the Republican party was able to put an army of brainwashed supporters together from the majority of the churches and corporations in America.

There is still quite a few hold outs and diehard supporters in here.

That and a little bit the Dems candidate was a Turd. 😛

 
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When large numbers of sick people gather they become a mob, a robotic entity that can be manipulated by pulling its strings. Mobs obey mechanical laws that can be understood and used by cleaver emotionally dead people. The mob psychosis always wears off with time. People wake up counting backward, I will now forget, I will now forget. Then the psychosis waits like a virus for the next outbreak.

Sometimes you have this knack to use 500 words to get across simple 5 word thoughts - you know what to say but always find a way to do it poetically - and it gives me a laugh. Its probably due to the fact the very same mob mentality you speak of also eludes your benevolent logic in this forum. You could explain it to them until the next century and they'd only look at you and say they do not understand. I bet a majority of the readers here missed the whole point and that is why nobody quoted it. Blessed are the poor in spirit.

People can not look at themselves because they will hate what they see, themselves. The poor in spirit are aware of their self hate and don't have to hide who they are from themselves. That is why, in this upside down world, the poor are rich. To be without pretense is a step toward being real. Blessed is he or she too poor to hold a grudge. To let go of hate is to enter the kingdom of heaven.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When large numbers of sick people gather they become a mob, a robotic entity that can be manipulated by pulling its strings. Mobs obey mechanical laws that can be understood and used by cleaver emotionally dead people. The mob psychosis always wears off with time. People wake up counting backward, I will now forget, I will now forget. Then the psychosis waits like a virus for the next outbreak.

Sometimes you have this knack to use 500 words to get across simple 5 word thoughts - you know what to say but always find a way to do it poetically - and it gives me a laugh. Its probably due to the fact the very same mob mentality you speak of also eludes your benevolent logic in this forum. You could explain it to them until the next century and they'd only look at you and say they do not understand. I bet a majority of the readers here missed the whole point and that is why nobody quoted it. Blessed are the poor in spirit.

People can not look at themselves because they will hate what they see, themselves. The poor in spirit are aware of their self hate and don't have to hide who they are from themselves. That is why, in this upside down world, the poor are rich. To be without pretense is a step toward being real. Blessed is he or she too poor to hold a grudge. To let go of hate is to enter the kingdom of heaven.

OOhhhh I think I understand. It is within our own heart, when reflecting on the seas of emotional conciousness, that harmony can be found? And it is then, through the waves of inner enlightenment, that one comes to see the true value of humankind?
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Perhaps your ewyes glazed over at reading this:
Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces.
Perhaps your eyes glazed over in this thread, * CONFIRMED * Pentagon Says NO Pre-War Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection. when everyone else shot down your same old revisionist bullsh8, one lie at a time, post after post.
Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection

Declassified document cites lack of 'evidence of a long-term relationship,' although No. 3 Defense staffer called contact 'mature and symbiotic.'

By
Jesse Nunes | csmonitor.com

A declassified report by the Pentagon's acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble provides new insight into the circumstances behind former Pentagon official Douglas Feith's pre-Iraq war assessment of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection ? an assessment that was contrary to US intelligence agency findings, and helped bolster the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war.

The report, which was made public in summary form in February, was released in full on Thursday by Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a statement accompanying the 121-page report, Senator Levin said: "It is important for the public to see why the Pentagon's Inspector General concluded that Secretary Feith's office 'developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,' which included 'conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.' "
  • The Feith office alternative intelligence assessments concluded that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating and had a "mature, symbiotic" relationship, a view that was not supported by the available intelligence, and was contrary to the consensus view of the Intelligence Community. These alternative assessments were used by the Administration to support its public arguments in its case for war. As the DOD IG report confirms, the Intelligence Community never found an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda; the report specifically states that," the CIA and DIA disavowed any 'mature, symbiotic' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."
The Los Angeles Times reports that in excerpts of the report released in February, Mr. Gimble called Feith's alternative intelligence "improper," but that it wasn't illegal or unauthorized because then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz assigned the work. The Times also reports that a prewar memo from Mr. Wolfowitz to Feith requesting that an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection be identified was among the newly released documents.
  • "We don't seem to be making much progress pulling together intelligence on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Wolfowitz wrote in the Jan. 22, 2002, memo to Douglas J. Feith, the department's No. 3 official.

    Using Pentagon jargon for the secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, he added: "We owe SecDef some analysis of this subject. Please give me a recommendation on how best to proceed. Appreciate the short turn-around."
The Times reports that the memo "marked the beginnings of what would become a controversial yearlong Pentagon project" to convince White House officials of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a connection "that was hotly disputed by U.S. intelligence agencies at the time and has been discredited in the years since."

The New York Times reports that presentation slides used during a Pentagon briefing at the White House were also released Thursday. The slides showed how Feith criticised US intelligence agencies that had found little or no Al Qaeda-Iraq link.

The slide used by the Pentagon analysts to brief the White House officials states the intelligence agencies assumed "that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate, even when they have common interests," and there was "consistent underestimation of importance that would be attached by Iraq and Al Qaeda to hiding a relationship."

The Pentagon, in written comments included in the report, strongly disputed that the White House briefing and the slide citing "Fundamental Problems" undercut the intelligence community.

"The intelligence community was fully aware of the work under review and commented on it several times," the Pentagon said, adding that [former CIA Diector George] Tenet, at the suggestion of the defense secretary then, Donald H. Rumsfeld, "was personally briefed."[/list]
The Times notes that the Pentagon analysts' appraisal of the CIA's approach was "in contrast" to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its 2004 report on prewar intelligence, which praised the CIA's approach as methodical, reasonable, and objective.

On a website set up to challenge Gimble's assessment in his report, Feith argues that the key issue at hand is "whether the CIA should be protected against criticism by policy officials." Feith also challenged Gimble's characterization of his intelligence assessment as "inappropriate."
  • The IG got this point wrong and it would be dangerous to follow his badly reasoned opinion on the issue. It would damage the quality of the government's intelligence and policy. The CIA has made important errors over the years - think of the Iraqi WMD assessments. To guard against such errors, policy officials should be praised, not slapped, for challenging CIA products.
Despite the release of Gimble's report, the Associated Press reports that Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday appeared on a conservative radio show and reiterated his stance that Al Qaeda had links to Iraq before the US invasion in 2003.
  • "[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."
The Washington Post, however, reports that Mr. Zarqawi only publicly allied himself with Al Qaeda after the US invasion, and until then "was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts."[/list]
How little you know. How soon you forget. How piss poorly you lie. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: Carlis
When america entered Iraq there seemed to be allmost concensus about the affair in america. Now years later there is a massive critiqe about the state of affairs and the great costs in both cash and american lives.

Is that not rather unfair? I mean, US entered Iraq to replace Sadam with a democratic regiem. Initiating such an operation it must have been clear that the mission is not only to remove a regiem but to help creat one as well. If US left today then I think most would agree that Iraq has changed to the worse. Sadam did not host terrorists, in fact he was affraid of them. That would be the ultimate failure. In a sense, GWB has a lot of spine because he refuse to leave Iraq in the current condition despite the enormous preassure. Im not a fan how him but I have to admit that.

Those people how gave the invasion a fullhearted support and now blaim GWB for the mess live by doubble standards. Lets admit most of us didnt se this coming a few years ago.



"When america entered Iraq there seemed to be allmost concensus about the affair in america. Now years later there is a massive critiqe about the state of affairs and the great costs in both cash and american lives."
"Lets admit most of us didnt se this coming a few years ago."

This isn't true. Maybe the masses who can't point out Iraq on a map didn't know this. But anyone with half a brain saw this coming a mile away. I was in college at the time and it we all agreed it was a bullheaded idiotic thing to do. Unfortunately, all we could do is sit back and watch the fools that we didn't vote into office(we lived in ny) mess up the country. Then people like you come and say "well, we couldn't have seen this coming, admit it!" and you think you speak for everyone because you, yourself were a fool.

How many more videos/transcripts of Bush Jr., Sr., Rice, etc saying that Iraq wasn't a threat within 1-4 years of the beginning of the war do we need to show you for you to realize that all involved knew about the risks. People with half a brain knew the risks. Just because the MSM and radio talk show hosts, and other political followers were too much of a wuss to speak up didn't... doesn't mean crap.

So no, my friends and I at college(I am a political science major as well) could see this folly a mile away. Just look at how Afghanistan was handled for crying out loud! Why would you think Iraq would have been better?
 
Originally posted by: Carlis
Originally posted by: boredhokie
Are you a student at DeVry? I can't even tell what the hell you're trying to say.

If you get over your amnesia of the reasons the war was sold on you'd see why most people think this war and admin is a total fvck up.

I know the WMD's was a factor when waging this war but I was under the impression that the cruelty of the regiem and lack of democracy in Iraq were equally important arguments. But then I followed this debate from outside of america.

Still, america reelected GWB in 2004 roughly one and a half year after the invasion presumably knowing Sadam had no WMD. It seems to me that the general lack of results in getting Iraq on its feet and going out of there with a victory has had more effect on opinions than GWB lying about those WMD's.


"that the cruelty of the regiem and lack of democracy in Iraq were equally important arguments"

Nope, Sudan was 1000x worse, so no reason to choose Iraq.

"Still, america reelected GWB in 2004 ".

The U.S. is elected through the electoral college, which means many votes don't matter(voting democrat in Florida nowadays), which leads to people not bothering to vote. Additionally, when you have the masses who can't even point to Iraq on the map voting, what do you expect?
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: techs
You are gravely mistaken, about a great many things.
The US invaded Iraq because an idiot President chose morons to manipulate intelligence to convince Americans Saddam had or would shortly have WMD.
We did not go there to get rid of Saddam and institute democracy.
Having screwed up over the intel on the invasion, Bush and his morons got to carry out THEIR plan, not ours, which was to depose Saddam and institute a democratic government friendly to the US and to get access to Iraqi oil.
After royally screwing THAT up Bush is now desperate to keep troops there, dying, so he doesn't have to admit how wrong he is.
Another thing is that the American occupation is, to some degree, the cause of the insurgency in Iraq.
If we would just leave, secure the borders of Iraq, and help moderates in Iraq where we can, the Iraqis will work out their own problems, probably thru violence, which may not be as severe as the current violence. Yet once an equlilibrium is reached Iraq can move forward. Which it can't do with the U.S. standing in the middle, hated by all.


I think that is BS. Everyone assumed Saddam had WMD's before we invaded, and either everyone turned out to be wrong, or he moved them to Syria since he saw the buildup happening for months. The people against Bush have tried to turn a mistake into a lie by repeating it over and over and over. I guess the people that predicted a severe hurrican season this past year are "liars" instead of just mistaken huh? Saying it is a lie is a logical fallacy, and i think you know it.

"
I think that is BS. Everyone assumed Saddam had WMD's before we invaded,"

Would you like us to post the videos of Rice saying Iraq wasn't a threat just one year prior to 9/11?

Iraq was annihilated both militarily and economically by sanctions for the previous decade. Don't tell me that everyone assumed that they somehow got WMDs and had the means to deliver them. It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Mxylplyx, just where did you get the idea that everyone assumed the WMD BS was true? This board alone was proof that a lot of people did not buy into it.

The polls of... what was it, 70% agreement in invading Iraq? Not to mention the Democratic Party leadership of today were also mentioning WMDs. Maybe not everyone bought it, but the vast majority did.

The vast majority are fools. American Idol, negative savings rate, and the fact that something like 90% of people polled couldn't even point to Iraq on the map or name the protections of the first amendment.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think its really easy to logically demonstrate that GWB&co. deceived the American public. And that there were two entirely different versions of the intelligence---the raw files that basically harvest all possible allegations of what Saddam had---and the refined files which was the best available estimate CIA of the real strength of Saddam in terms of WMD.

Its very easy to go to the raw files and cherry pick intel that inflates Saddam into a total powerhouse just a few steps away from nuking the US---and ignore the refined and analysis that puts together best available estimates of multiple pieces of intel---with the two big whoppers being the aluminum tubes could only be used for enriching uranium and the claim about Saddam buying yellow cake from Niger---both of which were already known by the CIA to be highly dubious at best well prior to the start of Gulf war2.

And the simple proof is as follows---if Rummy believed the crap that he and other neocons were feeding the American public----would he have gone in with the absurdly light invasion force he opted to use???---and then race to Baghdad at all available speed leaving American forces trapped and vulnerable to later WMD counterattacks?

Yeah but who gave out the cherry picked intel in the mid and late 90's? Thats who Im gunning for personally.

Clinton did not go to war, Bush did. Therefore the responsibility goes to Bush. It isn't like on the eve of Bush's presidency this happened.. the war didn't start til 2003.. 3 years later. Plenty of time to verify the evidence being used to ACTUALLY GO TO WAR. Talk > actions to you?
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When large numbers of sick people gather they become a mob, a robotic entity that can be manipulated by pulling its strings. Mobs obey mechanical laws that can be understood and used by cleaver emotionally dead people. The mob psychosis always wears off with time. People wake up counting backward, I will now forget, I will now forget. Then the psychosis waits like a virus for the next outbreak.

Sometimes you have this knack to use 500 words to get across simple 5 word thoughts - you know what to say but always find a way to do it poetically - and it gives me a laugh. Its probably due to the fact the very same mob mentality you speak of also eludes your benevolent logic in this forum. You could explain it to them until the next century and they'd only look at you and say they do not understand. I bet a majority of the readers here missed the whole point and that is why nobody quoted it. Blessed are the poor in spirit.

People can not look at themselves because they will hate what they see, themselves. The poor in spirit are aware of their self hate and don't have to hide who they are from themselves. That is why, in this upside down world, the poor are rich. To be without pretense is a step toward being real. Blessed is he or she too poor to hold a grudge. To let go of hate is to enter the kingdom of heaven.

OOhhhh I think I understand. It is within our own heart, when reflecting on the seas of emotional conciousness, that harmony can be found? And it is then, through the waves of inner enlightenment, that one comes to see the true value of humankind?

Sadly what you see is the wall of your intestines.
 
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah but who gave out the cherry picked intel in the mid and late 90's? Thats who Im gunning for personally.

Clinton did not go to war, Bush did. Therefore the responsibility goes to Bush. It isn't like on the eve of Bush's presidency this happened.. the war didn't start til 2003.. 3 years later. Plenty of time to verify the evidence being used to ACTUALLY GO TO WAR. Talk > actions to you?

This is about the ludicrous belief that Bush fabricated the idea of WMDs, when in fact the idea was there long before him.

Assail him all you want over screwing up, but do not fabricate stories of malice. There is no civil discourse where such unjust fantasies lead.
 
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Mxylplyx, just where did you get the idea that everyone assumed the WMD BS was true? This board alone was proof that a lot of people did not buy into it.

The polls of... what was it, 70% agreement in invading Iraq? Not to mention the Democratic Party leadership of today were also mentioning WMDs. Maybe not everyone bought it, but the vast majority did.

The vast majority are fools. American Idol, negative savings rate, and the fact that something like 90% of people polled couldn't even point to Iraq on the map or name the protections of the first amendment.

So then the fact that the majority of people want out of Iraq is meaningless as well...right?
 
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think its really easy to logically demonstrate that GWB&co. deceived the American public. And that there were two entirely different versions of the intelligence---the raw files that basically harvest all possible allegations of what Saddam had---and the refined files which was the best available estimate CIA of the real strength of Saddam in terms of WMD.

Its very easy to go to the raw files and cherry pick intel that inflates Saddam into a total powerhouse just a few steps away from nuking the US---and ignore the refined and analysis that puts together best available estimates of multiple pieces of intel---with the two big whoppers being the aluminum tubes could only be used for enriching uranium and the claim about Saddam buying yellow cake from Niger---both of which were already known by the CIA to be highly dubious at best well prior to the start of Gulf war2.

And the simple proof is as follows---if Rummy believed the crap that he and other neocons were feeding the American public----would he have gone in with the absurdly light invasion force he opted to use???---and then race to Baghdad at all available speed leaving American forces trapped and vulnerable to later WMD counterattacks?

Yeah but who gave out the cherry picked intel in the mid and late 90's? Thats who Im gunning for personally.

Clinton did not go to war, Bush did. Therefore the responsibility goes to Bush. It isn't like on the eve of Bush's presidency this happened.. the war didn't start til 2003.. 3 years later. Plenty of time to verify the evidence being used to ACTUALLY GO TO WAR. Talk > actions to you?

oh ok. If you say so.
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Clinton did not go to war, Bush did. Therefore the responsibility goes to Bush. It isn't like on the eve of Bush's presidency this happened.. the war didn't start til 2003.. 3 years later. Plenty of time to verify the evidence being used to ACTUALLY GO TO WAR. Talk > actions to you?

This is about the ludicrous belief that Bush fabricated the idea of WMDs, when in fact the idea was there long before him.
There is nothing ludicrous about it. All you have to do is go back to my earlier post in this thread (and often posted in others) listing the facts that show the Bushwhackos were making up their successive excuses for their war of lies as they went along and ignoring any input from competent sources that challenged their various versions of events and facts.
Assail him all you want over screwing up, but do not fabricate stories of malice. There is no civil discourse where such unjust fantasies lead.
The only fantasies that have caused the deaths of over 3,300 American troops, left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life, left hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civlians dead, wounded and displaced and left Americans with trillions of dollars of debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we've left this planet are those held by the Bushwhackos.

There is no civil discourse when the government abuses its powers against its own citizens to suppress the truth and stifile our Constitutional rights to legitimate dissent. See my sig file. 🙁
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah but who gave out the cherry picked intel in the mid and late 90's? Thats who Im gunning for personally.

Clinton did not go to war, Bush did. Therefore the responsibility goes to Bush. It isn't like on the eve of Bush's presidency this happened.. the war didn't start til 2003.. 3 years later. Plenty of time to verify the evidence being used to ACTUALLY GO TO WAR. Talk > actions to you?

This is about the ludicrous belief that Bush fabricated the idea of WMDs, when in fact the idea was there long before him.

Assail him all you want over screwing up, but do not fabricate stories of malice. There is no civil discourse where such unjust fantasies lead.

The evidence given to him was massaged for his own agenda. You don't need to fabricate to lie about something.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Mxylplyx, just where did you get the idea that everyone assumed the WMD BS was true? This board alone was proof that a lot of people did not buy into it.

The polls of... what was it, 70% agreement in invading Iraq? Not to mention the Democratic Party leadership of today were also mentioning WMDs. Maybe not everyone bought it, but the vast majority did.

The vast majority are fools. American Idol, negative savings rate, and the fact that something like 90% of people polled couldn't even point to Iraq on the map or name the protections of the first amendment.

So then the fact that the majority of people want out of Iraq is meaningless as well...right?

Correct.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think its really easy to logically demonstrate that GWB&co. deceived the American public. And that there were two entirely different versions of the intelligence---the raw files that basically harvest all possible allegations of what Saddam had---and the refined files which was the best available estimate CIA of the real strength of Saddam in terms of WMD.

Its very easy to go to the raw files and cherry pick intel that inflates Saddam into a total powerhouse just a few steps away from nuking the US---and ignore the refined and analysis that puts together best available estimates of multiple pieces of intel---with the two big whoppers being the aluminum tubes could only be used for enriching uranium and the claim about Saddam buying yellow cake from Niger---both of which were already known by the CIA to be highly dubious at best well prior to the start of Gulf war2.

And the simple proof is as follows---if Rummy believed the crap that he and other neocons were feeding the American public----would he have gone in with the absurdly light invasion force he opted to use???---and then race to Baghdad at all available speed leaving American forces trapped and vulnerable to later WMD counterattacks?

Yeah but who gave out the cherry picked intel in the mid and late 90's? Thats who Im gunning for personally.

Clinton did not go to war, Bush did. Therefore the responsibility goes to Bush. It isn't like on the eve of Bush's presidency this happened.. the war didn't start til 2003.. 3 years later. Plenty of time to verify the evidence being used to ACTUALLY GO TO WAR. Talk > actions to you?

oh ok. If you say so.

Nah, you are right.. talking about something and doing nothing and talking about something and going to war over it are the same. My bad.
 
Back
Top