Turn back the clock.. Did we forget?

[kramadas]

They've been broadcasting the 9/11 commission hearings live...been informed that a lot of stuff claimed by the administration has been overturned. Someone is going to try get the whole 16 hours into mp3 format....will try get it whenever I can.

Haven't heard the stuff myself, but the person who made the above statement has been trustworthy in the past.

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

They've been broadcasting the 9/11 commission hearings live...been informed that a lot of stuff claimed by the administration has been overturned. Someone is going to try get the whole 16 hours into mp3 format....will try get it whenever I can.

Haven't heard the stuff myself, but the person who made the above statement has been trustworthy in the past.

I have watched every minuet of it..nothing has been "overturned", on either side

[kramadas]

Originally posted by igloo

I have watched every minuet of it..nothing has been "overturned", on either side

I haven't so I have no idea...do you know when today's transcript is going to come out?

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Iraq was not imminent before the war and the facts un-covered make it obvious that they were a long way from being a "clear and present danger". Its one thing for the neo-cons to fall back on the humanitarian issue as a reason for war, but WMD's, as evidenced over and over again, were/are a big non-issue. And the issue of terrorists - a simple comparison of their numbers before and after Hussein's fall makes it self-explanatory.

I'll buy that Hussein was a dictator, and needed to go, but not the neo-con rhetoric that the world as a whole (at present) is a safer place for his departure. I have not found anything out there, that is more than heresay and simple circumstatantial evidence, that there was any link between Al Queda and Iraq.

My support for the statement comes from the fact that Bush "bases" his decisions on recommendations from the intelligence community, and on not much else. Anything wrong with that?

And the intelligence community's stance is very contradictory at present. They should have had the strength to have made a non-biased analysis of the threat. HOwever, as seen from previous articles, the powers that be over there bent to the will of the administration and gave the green light (the articles I'm talking about regarding the pressure on analysts to come up with something on Iraq that would help the cause for war).

And I tend to believe Clarke's assessment. Its no secret that Bush has had a huge hard-on for Saddam since the very beginning.

Raver..what are you talking about?...you got me all riled up now

First of all.... Yes WMD's were an obvious huge part of the war, but not the only one, by any stretch. And the administration is not "falling' back on the humanitarian issue---that "falling back" arguement is antiwar spin....

If anything, the anti-war crowd diminshes and discounts that part of the equation is a shameful display of hypocracy.....If you want to get technical Bush made the humanitarian issue from the get-go, part of his UN speech, which mr mahs continually points too, and you all ignore...

And is not the humanitarian issue tied to establishing a democracy in Iraq---I know the anti-Bush crowd loves calling that vision neocon fantasy, but for anyone to argue against that vision and the merits and benefits for that part of the world, and the national security of the U.S. is completely clueless.

If that vision is without merit or foundation, why is AL Qaeda and Iran and Syria doing everything they can to make sure that it does not become a reality?

I could provide you on plenty of information on AL Qaeda-Iraq links, and I have posted it here....you choose, as others, to ignore it.......you want an expert opinion, read Bodansky...if you want, I will be more than happy to re-post some of the information...

You respect Clark, me too.....I think he has an agenda right now, but I do respect his thoughts....When we bombed the plant in the Sudan, do you know the reason why---it was believed, by Clark, it was a WMD warfare plant, jointly operated by Al Qaeda and Iraqi WMD experts......

To say the world is not better off and safer without Saddam Hussein is naive and ignorant.....let's also not forget that after a decade of sanctions and the corruput Oil for Food program, Saddam's allies (France and Germany and Russia) were pushing for an end to sanctions .....I am sure Iraq would have behaved perfectly without sanctions and US planes patroling the skies (and getting shot at)......

And let's not even get into the UN and their toothless enforcement of resolutions and ceasefire agreement that had serious negative ramifications with other regimes, not only Iraq...

And you talk about Bush having a hard-on for Saddam.....and the Clinton administration did not??????......you have selective memory......feel free to reference the thoughts of the Clinton administration towards Saddam that I posted on this thread..

And no one...not one credible person on either side of the political divide or in the intelligence agencies claimed analysts were "willed" or "pressured" on the intelligence (other than blowhards like Howard Dean and Ted kennedy and the like)...

On the contrary, from David Kay to others, have continually said that bullshit accusation is false....You are 100% wrong for going down that road....again, this is empty, anti-Bush bullshit...

And let's not forget that foreign intelligence services, Clinton administration, and the U.N. all thought WMD existed........this was a massive intelligence failure.....call it for what it really is and save the empty "lied" and "pressured the CIA" bullshit for the useful idiots....seriously, this is such a tired stance

And as much as I am disappointed in the intelligence community, you need to relax with the " have had the strength to have made a non-biased analysis of the threat".......that is exactly what they did. To say anything else is to ignore the facts and testimony, and discredit professionals.

It would seem those who accuse the Bush Administration of "cherry picking" intelligence data are guilty of doing the same in their anti-war rhetoric.

And as much as I want to see change and reform in our intelligence services, if there was anything that was learned in the 9/11 hearings hopefully for the public, is that the intelligence business is extremely complex and difficult.....and never perfect. Raw data, try to connect the dots, and make a judgement. That is the intelligence business. Just as we are trying to collect useful data, the other side is trying to deceive.

The same people who crucified the CIA for not connecting the dots on 9/11 are the same people who crucify the CIA for trying to connect the dots on Iraq. Unfuckingreal.

And the same people who are crucifying Bush for invading Iraq based on "faulty intelligence" and ignoring the UN" are the same people who accept the Clinton Administration defense of inaction against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan due to "poor intelligence, concern that the UN and the US population would not go along with an invasion, attacking a Muslim country, etc".....

I bet there are 3000 people and family members who wish that Clinton made the same "mistake" as Bush and used the best intelligence available at the time, and ignored what may seem popular in France or Muslim countries and pre-emptively lit into Afghanistan.

And the same people who rip into Bush's doctrine of pre-emption, ignore the fact that he made the case to go into Iraq "before the danger became imminent"....reference his exact statement from Bush I posted on this thread.

Lastly on the CIA. They completely underestimated how far advanced Iraq's nuclear capability was in the first Gulf War. We did not know until we invaded. They were asleep on Pakistan, when they first made a bomb to recent proliferation events. They missed on Iran. They have missed on Al Qaeda. Hell, they even missed on the Soviet Union collapsing.

But to be fair, we never hear about their success either.

Last question on the WMD issue.

To this day, no proof has been discovered that Iraq indeed destroyed their known stockpiles after 1998. With all of the detailed records that Iraq maintained, why would this being missing?

I am going to give you a pass on this serious misstep of a post raver, only because you are a "good" lefty

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

I haven't so I have no idea...do you know when today's transcript is going to come out?

Not sure. To be honest, I did not hear anything different from Clark;s testimony that we have not heard before or would have expected.

I think the panel is doing a decent job. I think Clark summed up the entire inquiry best with his opening statement where he apologized to the 9/11 families, and said their govt failed them.

I agree...9/11 was a systematic decade of failure with plenty of blame to go around.

But I could care less any longer about pointing the finger of blame (unless those who keep trying to blame Bush continue) , just want what is broken fixed, and a solid plan and execution going forward.

[normalnoises]

BUSH ADMINISTRATION RESORTS TO LIES ABOUT 9/11

With President Bush's former top counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke

issuing well-documented criticisms of the White House's failure to defend

America, the Administration has resorted to outright lies and distortions

about its record. The president himself once again tried to deflect

criticism, saying "had my administration had any information that terrorists

were going to attack New York City on September the 11" (1) - a statement

designed to deflect attention from the specific warnings that he personally

received outlining an imminent Al Qaeda attack (2) that could involve

hijacked planes (3) being used as missiles (4).

Here are four other explicit lies that the Administration has told over the

last few days:

LIE: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that Clarke "chose

not to" (5) voice his concerns about the Administration's counterterrorism

policy. But Clarke sent an urgent memo to Rice in January 2001 asking for a

Cabinet-level meeting about an imminent Al Qaeda attack (6). The White House

itself admits top Bush officials rejected Clarke's request, saying they "did

not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." (7)

LIE: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan yesterday denied Clarke's

charge that the president ordered the Pentagon to begin drafting plans to

invade Iraq immediately after 9/11. (8) But according to the Washington

Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the

Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document" that "directed

the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq."

(9) This was corroborated by a September 2002 CBS News report which reported

that, immediately after 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told "aides

to come up with plans for striking Iraq." (10)

LIE: Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley denied Clarke's charge

that there was an imminent domestic threat against America from Al Qaeda,

saying, "All the chatter [before 9/11] was of an attack, a potential Al

Qaeda attack overseas." (11) But, according to the bipartisan Congressional

report on 9/11, "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report

that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to

"carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was

included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August

[2001]." (12)

LIE: Bush National Security spokesman Jim Wilkinson claimed that "it was

this president who expedited the deployment of the armed Predator" (the

unmanned plane) (13). But, according to Newsweek, it was the Bush

Administration who "elected not to relaunch the Predator" and who did not

deploy the new armed version of it despite "the military having successfully

tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001." (14)

Sources:

1. President Discusses Economy and Terrorism After Cabinet Meeting,

03/23/2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040323-5.html

2. "August Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S.", Washington Post, 05/18/2002,

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0518-04.htm

3. "Report Warned Of Suicide Hijackings", CBS News, 05/18/2002,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/18/attack/main509488.shtml

4. "Italy Tells of Threat at Genoa Summit", Los Angeles Times, 09/27/2001,

http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

5. American Morning Transcript, 03/22/2004,

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/22/ltm.04.html

6. "Clarke's Take On Terror", CBS News, 03/21/2004,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

7. "White House Rebuttal to Clarke Interview", Washington Post, 02/23/2004,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&destination=register&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-politics&applicationURL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14760-2004Mar22.html

8. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 03/23/2004,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040323-4.html

9. "U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past", Washington Post, 01/12/2003,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer

10. "Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11", CBS News, 09/04/2002,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

11. "Clarke's Take On Terror", CBS News, 03/21/2004,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

12. Joint Inquiry of Intelligence Community Activities Before and After The

Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, 12/2002,

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/recommendations.pdf

13. Fox News, 3/22/04

14. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002,

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html

Swallow it whole Iglost!!

[normalnoises]

Well Igloo... Still waiting....

[siceone]

Originally posted by bdanto4

our terror experts tell us when a threat is imminent.. they didn't believe Iraq was a threat

who didn't belive iraq was an imminent threat?

[BRIANC1046]

Originally posted by siceone

who didn't belive iraq was an imminent threat?

Intelligence “analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.

- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004

[siceone]

obviously you know nothing of the LAW he said No one said it... cause it's not thier job he said no one said it because it's not his job way to leave out the rest of the statment. he said his job was to give the decision makers information and they would make it.

first of all no one every said except of liberals the words Imminent, threat and Iraq in the same sentence in this administration.

there is a big difference between saying and beliving something get your head out of your ass

[igloo]

Originally posted by bdanto4

Intelligence “analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.

- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004

I apologize for insulting you, because it is crystal clear that you have a serious learning disability, and that is not to be taken lightly.

As a suggestion, take the Tenet quote, and the Bush quote provided about how we can no longer wait for threats to become imminent, ......and jump on your "special" bus to your "special" class and have your "special" teacher explain it it you.

Let's hope your "special" teacher is a professional, and well versed in education methods designed for "special" people like you.

Good Luck

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by igloo

Raver..what are you talking about?...you got me all riled up now

First of all.... Yes WMD's were an obvious huge part of the war, but not the only one, by any stretch. And the administration is not "falling' back on the humanitarian issue---that "falling back" arguement is antiwar spin....

If anything, the anti-war crowd diminshes and discounts that part of the equation is a shameful display of hypocracy.....If you want to get technical Bush made the humanitarian issue from the get-go, part of his UN speech, which mr mahs continually points too, and you all ignore...

And is not the humanitarian issue tied to establishing a democracy in Iraq---I know the anti-Bush crowd loves calling that vision neocon fantasy, but for anyone to argue against that vision and the merits and benefits for that part of the world, and the national security of the U.S. is completely clueless.

If that vision is without merit or foundation, why is AL Qaeda and Iran and Syria doing everything they can to make sure that it does not become a reality?

I could provide you on plenty of information on AL Qaeda-Iraq links, and I have posted it here....you choose, as others, to ignore it.......you want an expert opinion, read Bodansky...if you want, I will be more than happy to re-post some of the information...

You respect Clark, me too.....I think he has an agenda right now, but I do respect his thoughts....When we bombed the plant in the Sudan, do you know the reason why---it was believed, by Clark, it was a WMD warfare plant, jointly operated by Al Qaeda and Iraqi WMD experts......

To say the world is not better off and safer without Saddam Hussein is naive and ignorant.....let's also not forget that after a decade of sanctions and the corruput Oil for Food program, Saddam's allies (France and Germany and Russia) were pushing for an end to sanctions .....I am sure Iraq would have behaved perfectly without sanctions and US planes patroling the skies (and getting shot at)......

And let's not even get into the UN and their toothless enforcement of resolutions and ceasefire agreement that had serious negative ramifications with other regimes, not only Iraq...

And you talk about Bush having a hard-on for Saddam.....and the Clinton administration did not??????......you have selective memory......feel free to reference the thoughts of the Clinton administration towards Saddam that I posted on this thread..

And no one...not one credible person on either side of the political divide or in the intelligence agencies claimed analysts were "willed" or "pressured" on the intelligence (other than blowhards like Howard Dean and Ted kennedy and the like)...

On the contrary, from David Kay to others, have continually said that bullshit accusation is false....You are 100% wrong for going down that road....again, this is empty, anti-Bush bullshit...

And let's not forget that foreign intelligence services, Clinton administration, and the U.N. all thought WMD existed........this was a massive intelligence failure.....call it for what it really is and save the empty "lied" and "pressured the CIA" bullshit for the useful idiots....seriously, this is such a tired stance

And as much as I am disappointed in the intelligence community, you need to relax with the " have had the strength to have made a non-biased analysis of the threat".......that is exactly what they did. To say anything else is to ignore the facts and testimony, and discredit professionals.

It would seem those who accuse the Bush Administration of "cherry picking" intelligence data are guilty of doing the same in their anti-war rhetoric.

And as much as I want to see change and reform in our intelligence services, if there was anything that was learned in the 9/11 hearings hopefully for the public, is that the intelligence business is extremely complex and difficult.....and never perfect. Raw data, try to connect the dots, and make a judgement. That is the intelligence business. Just as we are trying to collect useful data, the other side is trying to deceive.

The same people who crucified the CIA for not connecting the dots on 9/11 are the same people who crucify the CIA for trying to connect the dots on Iraq. Unfuckingreal.

And the same people who are crucifying Bush for invading Iraq based on "faulty intelligence" and ignoring the UN" are the same people who accept the Clinton Administration defense of inaction against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan due to "poor intelligence, concern that the UN and the US population would not go along with an invasion, attacking a Muslim country, etc".....

I bet there are 3000 people and family members who wish that Clinton made the same "mistake" as Bush and used the best intelligence available at the time, and ignored what may seem popular in France or Muslim countries and pre-emptively lit into Afghanistan.

And the same people who rip into Bush's doctrine of pre-emption, ignore the fact that he made the case to go into Iraq "before the danger became imminent"....reference his exact statement from Bush I posted on this thread.

Lastly on the CIA. They completely underestimated how far advanced Iraq's nuclear capability was in the first Gulf War. We did not know until we invaded. They were asleep on Pakistan, when they first made a bomb to recent proliferation events. They missed on Iran. They have missed on Al Qaeda. Hell, they even missed on the Soviet Union collapsing.

But to be fair, we never hear about their success either.

Last question on the WMD issue.

To this day, no proof has been discovered that Iraq indeed destroyed their known stockpiles after 1998. With all of the detailed records that Iraq maintained, why would this being missing?

I am going to give you a pass on this serious misstep of a post raver, only because you are a "good" lefty

On point...Every word!

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by igloo

I apologize for insulting you, because it is crystal clear that you have a serious learning disability, and that is not to be taken lightly.

As a suggestion, take the Tenet quote, and the Bush quote provided about how we can no longer wait for threats to become imminent, ......and jump on your "special" bus to your "special" class and have your "special" teacher explain it it you.

Let's hope your "special" teacher is a professional, and well versed in education methods designed for "special" people like you.

Good Luck

:laugh:

[BRIANC1046]

Originally posted by igloo

I apologize for insulting you, because it is crystal clear that you have a serious learning disability, and that is not to be taken lightly.

As a suggestion, take the Tenet quote, and the Bush quote provided about how we can no longer wait for threats to become imminent, ......and jump on your "special" bus to your "special" class and have your "special" teacher explain it it you.

Let's hope your "special" teacher is a professional, and well versed in education methods designed for "special" people like you.

Good Luck

i read Bush's opinion that if we wait until an imminent threat we might be waiting too long, but do you really think we should invade and go to war with a country that doesn't pose a MAJOR threat? Once we feel a minor threat, should be go to war to prevent an imminent threat?

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by bdanto4

i read Bush's opinion that if we wait until an imminent threat we might be waiting too long, but do you really think we should invade and go to war with a country that doesn't pose a MAJOR threat? Once we feel a minor threat, should be go to war to prevent an imminent threat?

Yep...

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by siceone

obviously you know nothing of the LAW he said No one said it... cause it's not thier job he said no one said it because it's not his job way to leave out the rest of the statment. he said his job was to give the decision makers information and they would make it.

first of all no one every said except of liberals the words Imminent, threat and Iraq in the same sentence in this administration.

there is a big difference between saying and beliving something get your head out of your ass

just wondering...were you for the war?

[siceone]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

just wondering...were you for the war?

yes

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by siceone

yes

considering that the vatican denounced it...i find your support of it to be interesting

[siceone]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

considering that the vatican denounced it...i find your support of it to be interesting

I gave up on religion a long time ago bro sorry there's just too many contradictions with real facts...

While I am a very spiritual person and do subscribe to most of the basic principles of christianity. I don't let other people tell me what's to belive.

Do you think I give to shits about what the pope says? Im supposed to tailor my life around the Nuance and dogma of the catholic church? The Vatican thinks Gay people are sinners and going to hell, do I belive that, NO!!!Should I belive gay people are going to hell because the vatican says so? The vatican is prolife and Im pro choice. should I switch on my stance of a womens right to choose cause Im a catholic? the vatican also says that their way is the only way to make a communion with god. Am I going to be struck down by the all mighty pontif becasue I think Jews Muslims Hindus, Jains and countless other religions, Including, by the way, other sects of christianity, are free to worship the devine creator in their own way. are those people going to hell too just cause the fucking Vatican says so? The Vatican also approved slavery.. should I think thats cool too... Oh and again the vatican while showing distaste for homosexualality the Vatican is also soft on child molesting preists which is just dispicable.

so you know what man Screw the Vatican the vatican does not dictate my relationship with jesus or god or the holy spirit.

what about the vatican not taking a position on the holocaust is that cool too Eric?

what about the vatican buying the land in most of the south american countries for a fraction of it's value depriving the people which it belongs too the right to use it. What about that bro is that cool too?

There are alot of things I agree with the vatican on and alot of things I don't. I just happen to disagree that after 12 years of talking, appeasing begging, extortion, lies, proliferation and broken UN sanctions, that we need to talk about the fucking problem some more while millions of people die cause they don't have the same belifes and the party who rules the country.

if I see my neighbor beating his wife and I call the cops night after night and they say we'll talk to him and for the next 12 weeks he beats her to death then starts on the kids. I am going to do something about it. not talk some more sometimes action is the best course of action..

by the way take your interest in my relationship with the fucking vatican and shove it up your ass. don't bring that shit in here.

[igloo]

Originally posted by siceone

by the way take your interest in my relationship with the fucking vatican and shove it up your ass. don't bring that shit in here.

[kramadas]

Originally posted by igloo

Raver..what are you talking about?...you got me all riled up now

First of all.... Yes WMD's were an obvious huge part of the war, but not the only one, by any stretch. And the administration is not "falling' back on the humanitarian issue---that "falling back" arguement is antiwar spin....

If anything, the anti-war crowd diminshes and discounts that part of the equation is a shameful display of hypocracy.....If you want to get technical Bush made the humanitarian issue from the get-go, part of his UN speech, which mr mahs continually points too, and you all ignore...

And is not the humanitarian issue tied to establishing a democracy in Iraq---I know the anti-Bush crowd loves calling that vision neocon fantasy, but for anyone to argue against that vision and the merits and benefits for that part of the world, and the national security of the U.S. is completely clueless.

If that vision is without merit or foundation, why is AL Qaeda and Iran and Syria doing everything they can to make sure that it does not become a reality?

I could provide you on plenty of information on AL Qaeda-Iraq links, and I have posted it here....you choose, as others, to ignore it.......you want an expert opinion, read Bodansky...if you want, I will be more than happy to re-post some of the information...

You respect Clark, me too.....I think he has an agenda right now, but I do respect his thoughts....When we bombed the plant in the Sudan, do you know the reason why---it was believed, by Clark, it was a WMD warfare plant, jointly operated by Al Qaeda and Iraqi WMD experts......

To say the world is not better off and safer without Saddam Hussein is naive and ignorant.....let's also not forget that after a decade of sanctions and the corruput Oil for Food program, Saddam's allies (France and Germany and Russia) were pushing for an end to sanctions .....I am sure Iraq would have behaved perfectly without sanctions and US planes patroling the skies (and getting shot at)......

And let's not even get into the UN and their toothless enforcement of resolutions and ceasefire agreement that had serious negative ramifications with other regimes, not only Iraq...

And you talk about Bush having a hard-on for Saddam.....and the Clinton administration did not??????......you have selective memory......feel free to reference the thoughts of the Clinton administration towards Saddam that I posted on this thread..

And no one...not one credible person on either side of the political divide or in the intelligence agencies claimed analysts were "willed" or "pressured" on the intelligence (other than blowhards like Howard Dean and Ted kennedy and the like)...

On the contrary, from David Kay to others, have continually said that bullshit accusation is false....You are 100% wrong for going down that road....again, this is empty, anti-Bush bullshit...

And let's not forget that foreign intelligence services, Clinton administration, and the U.N. all thought WMD existed........this was a massive intelligence failure.....call it for what it really is and save the empty "lied" and "pressured the CIA" bullshit for the useful idiots....seriously, this is such a tired stance

And as much as I am disappointed in the intelligence community, you need to relax with the " have had the strength to have made a non-biased analysis of the threat".......that is exactly what they did. To say anything else is to ignore the facts and testimony, and discredit professionals.

It would seem those who accuse the Bush Administration of "cherry picking" intelligence data are guilty of doing the same in their anti-war rhetoric.

And as much as I want to see change and reform in our intelligence services, if there was anything that was learned in the 9/11 hearings hopefully for the public, is that the intelligence business is extremely complex and difficult.....and never perfect. Raw data, try to connect the dots, and make a judgement. That is the intelligence business. Just as we are trying to collect useful data, the other side is trying to deceive.

The same people who crucified the CIA for not connecting the dots on 9/11 are the same people who crucify the CIA for trying to connect the dots on Iraq. Unfuckingreal.

And the same people who are crucifying Bush for invading Iraq based on "faulty intelligence" and ignoring the UN" are the same people who accept the Clinton Administration defense of inaction against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan due to "poor intelligence, concern that the UN and the US population would not go along with an invasion, attacking a Muslim country, etc".....

I bet there are 3000 people and family members who wish that Clinton made the same "mistake" as Bush and used the best intelligence available at the time, and ignored what may seem popular in France or Muslim countries and pre-emptively lit into Afghanistan.

And the same people who rip into Bush's doctrine of pre-emption, ignore the fact that he made the case to go into Iraq "before the danger became imminent"....reference his exact statement from Bush I posted on this thread.

Lastly on the CIA. They completely underestimated how far advanced Iraq's nuclear capability was in the first Gulf War. We did not know until we invaded. They were asleep on Pakistan, when they first made a bomb to recent proliferation events. They missed on Iran. They have missed on Al Qaeda. Hell, they even missed on the Soviet Union collapsing.

But to be fair, we never hear about their success either.

Last question on the WMD issue.

To this day, no proof has been discovered that Iraq indeed destroyed their known stockpiles after 1998. With all of the detailed records that Iraq maintained, why would this being missing?

I am going to give you a pass on this serious misstep of a post raver, only because you are a "good" lefty

Igloo - you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was not a massive intelligence failure, or that Bush "lied". However, I do believe there always was an agenda to go after Hussein, parts of which may be surfacing with the 9/11 comission - and motives for this agenda surpass any potential "major" threat Saddam hussein could have posed in the near term. I do not believe Hussein posed a major threat, be it intelligence failure or otherwise, the administration was the one in power when it happened, thus they have to be the ones answerable to the lack of WMDs. If it was Clinton in power who did this, then his administration would be to blame. I really am not routing for any party, thus the democratic-vs-republican sparring is lost on me.

And the notion of pre-emptive strikes. You agree that the CIA has had (and probably will have) massive intelligence failures. With this record (as you posted) of failures, how does one justify invading a nation. Next time the CIA or government "thinks" a nation might be posing a threat, can that judgement be trusted enough to invade a country? Can the morals of the AMerican public stand upto that? I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well enough, but a pre-emptive strategy cannot be pursued if it is a known fact that our intelligence agencies are prone to massive failures. Like throwing stones at a tree to get an apple, but destroying the tree in the process.

Yes, I would have supported an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11 as bin Laden was hiding there, and it is known his group was responsible for many attacks on American interests. Thus, that would not have been a pre-emptive strike, IMO.

I haven't tackled all your points as I'm short of time now, but my basic outlook on the war still is the same - yes, its good Saddam is gone, but the way it was achieved is dubious at best. Saying the ends justify the means is a very dangerous road to travel down.

PS: There were some evidence that supposedly revealed links betwen Al queda and Saddam but a lot of that stuff was disproved. But maybe I'm missing a couple of articles - I just don't remember being convinced of an absolute link between the two. And trust me, I'm being as objective as possible about this - I have no reason not to be.

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Igloo - you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was not a massive intelligence failure, or that Bush "lied". However, I do believe there always was an agenda to go after Hussein, parts of which may be surfacing with the 9/11 comission - and motives for this agenda surpass any potential "major" threat Saddam hussein could have posed in the near term. I do not believe Hussein posed a major threat, be it intelligence failure or otherwise, the administration was the one in power when it happened, thus they have to be the ones answerable to the lack of WMDs. If it was Clinton in power who did this, then his administration would be to blame. I really am not routing for any party, thus the democratic-vs-republican sparring is lost on me.

And the notion of pre-emptive strikes. You agree that the CIA has had (and probably will have) massive intelligence failures. With this record (as you posted) of failures, how does one justify invading a nation. Next time the CIA or government "thinks" a nation might be posing a threat, can that judgement be trusted enough to invade a country? Can the morals of the AMerican public stand upto that? I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well enough, but a pre-emptive strategy cannot be pursued if it is a known fact that our intelligence agencies are prone to massive failures. Like throwing stones at a tree to get an apple, but destroying the tree in the process.

Yes, I would have supported an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11 as bin Laden was hiding there, and it is known his group was responsible for many attacks on American interests. Thus, that would not have been a pre-emptive strike, IMO.

I haven't tackled all your points as I'm short of time now, but my basic outlook on the war still is the same - yes, its good Saddam is gone, but the way it was achieved is dubious at best. Saying the ends justify the means is a very dangerous road to travel down.

PS: There were some evidence that supposedly revealed links betwen Al queda and Saddam but a lot of that stuff was disproved. But maybe I'm missing a couple of articles - I just don't remember being convinced of an absolute link between the two. And trust me, I'm being as objective as possible about this - I have no reason not to be.

If I put words in your mouth on the "Bush Lied" stuff, my fault...it is so prevalent here, and with those against Bush, I may have thrown you too into the mix....

Do I think the Bush administration may have had an agenda towards Iraq when they came in.....Yes........Was that agenda strengthened because of 9/11.....Yes.......and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...

The press and the antiBush crowd is making it to be a negative and part of some demonic scheme by the Bush administration..absurd.....

Iraq was considered a threat in the Clinton administration and the world too .....If the world community did not think Saddam hussein was a threat, why a decade of sanctions?....Was it because corrupt UN officials and France and Russia were making too much money off this program?

....That is why I point to the Clinton administration, because it IS a Democrat vs Republican thing, or at least an antiBush thing. Bush gets attacked for the same beliefs as the prior administration and the world. Except in a post 9/11 world, Bush took action against a regime that was a threat to all.

Clinton's administration thought Saddam was a GRAVE and MAJOR threat...this belief was not solely that of the Bush administration......

Clinton bombed him twice, almost launched an invasion, fought in the U.N security council for tougher sanctions and the enforcement of existing sanctions, and spoke freely and publicly about the threat of Iraq.....would they have done so if they thought Iraq was not a major threat?

In addition, the Clinton administration believed the Iraqi threat was growing in the last days of office....just reference some of Abright's comments.....

Again, I point this out simply to dispel the bullshit that Bush, and Bush alone had a hard on for Hussein.......if you want to believe Iraq never posed a threat, that is fine.....but to simply say Bush was the only one is not being objective or considering the facts...

In addition, can you fault the Bush team to look into Iraq after 9/11 for connections??....it was widely believed in the intelligence community that AL Qaeda did not have the capacity to pull off such a monstrous attack without state sponsorship.....knowing what we did about Iraq, would it not have been foolish to explore this possibility?

In addition, if anyone believes that AL Qaeda and other terrorist groups operate independently of state sponsorship, they are on Mars.....

Let's also not forget that Iraq tried assassinating President Bush.......the left and Bush haters love to talk about "Daddy's revenge" but they leave out the important element that this was a US President.....an act of war

With respects to Pre-emptive action...I agree with you...that policy can be dangerous if intelligence is not perfect....but intelligence is never perfect, and never will be.....and pre-emption can take many forms. Like I said, there are plenty of people who now wish Clinton had taken action on imperfect intelligence.

And while I pointed out the failures of the CIA, I also noted hat we never hear of their success either. That must be kept in mind.

Judgements have to be made on the best available information, and the dots need to be connected as best as possible. A 9/11 lesson learned is that if you wait for the "perfect" intelligence,, the results could be deadly for our national security. This is where leadership comes into place.

I find it interesting that you would have supported a pre-emtive attack on Afghanistan...Would you have prior to 9/11?....because most Americans and the world would not have, despite the data we had on AL Qaeda

The 9/11 panel has seen the Clinton team using faulty intelligence and a lack of support for a pre-emptive attack as their defense for not being more pro-active.....think about that in the context of the Bush decision to invade Iraq......

Intelligence from EVERYONE that he had WMD, shooting at our planes every day, using WMD's before, known stockpiles, the refusal to comply with US resolutions, attacking his neighbors, failure to adhere to the 1991 ceasefire agreement, trying to kill a US President, the harboring of known terrorists--including a terrorist from the 1991 WTC bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....

The entire picture of Iraq can only translate into threat.......are there other threats in the world too......of course, but that does not mean you do not take down a threat when you can, and when it makes sense.......and every situation requires a different approach.....

I find it laughable that the Bush haters cry that the U.S. went at it alone (depsite the host of countries supporting the effort), and that more time should have been given to diplomacy......Iraq had over a decade for diplomacy, and it ran its string...it was ineffective and no longer applicable.....Iraq did not respect the diplomatic process, and no one but the regime can be held responsible for that.

And let's not forget that "diplomacy" with Iraq from antiwar countries (France and Russia in particluar) was corrupt. Completely corrupt. Why does the antiwar crowd refuse to recognize this. More and more come out every day as to why these countries were really antiwar, but it is ignored. Just look at what is occurring with the scandal at the U.N. with the Oil for Food program. I notice the antiwar peeps on this board ignore that information.

I also laugh at the Bush haters who say--more can have been done. Diplomacy was ineffective. Sanctions were ineffective (except for the building of palaces). Bombing campigns were ineffective (in some degrees). Encouraging an uprising was ineffective. Coup's were impossible. The Hussein regime needed to end, period.

And let's not also ignore how the Bush haters scream about Bush the unilateralist, but ignore the multi-lateral approach to N Korea, who everyone screams about as a bigger threat. "Well, if we invade Iraq, why North Korea" is a famous cry, and one that could be not be more ignorant and stupid. Different situation, different approach.

And with respects to WMD"s, this was not the only element of the justification for this war. It certainly was the most public, visible and forceful of the elements, but not the only one by any stretch. To say so is simply wrong.

Of course it makes the WMD issue more relevant now that none have been found, especially for the Bush haters. But to fail to recognize the variety of elements used for the justification of this war, and the failure to recognize what it looks like when you take all of that criteria into a whole, and the failure to understand how Iraq fits into the broader war on terror is, at least in my opinion, ignorant.

I think saying "the ends justify the means" is more antiwar bullshit. Sorry. There were too many reasons for the Iraqi war to say this. This is leftist, antiwar spin.

Raver--if you believe Iraq never posed a threat pre-Bush and post-Bush, that is fine. And if you are resting that belief on the lack of WMD's, I can respect that. But don't ignore the many other reasons for this war, and the absolutely tremendous upside it represents for the region, the world, and the national security of the U.S.

For those screaming that the war on terror needs to include winning the war of ideas, well democracy in Iraq sure fits the bill.

P.S. On the AL Qaeda link....Let me just point to one example. Ansar AL Islam. Operated a huge terrorist training camp and operation in Iraq. All trained in Afghanistan and by Iraqi intelligence. Their leader had significant ties to AL Qaeda, and recently wrote the famous letter to AL Qaeda leadership.

Do you think Saddam Hussein, and his brutal police state, did not know this group was operating in Iraq?......And if he did, why would he let them, since AL Qaeda is against secularists?...because they had a common cause, the Kurds. DOes Iraq and AL Qaeda share any other common cuases you know about?

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by igloo

If I put words in your mouth on the "Bush Lied" stuff, my fault...it is so prevalent here, and with those against Bush, I may have thrown you too into the mix....

Do I think the Bush administration may have had an agenda towards Iraq when they came in.....Yes........Was that agenda strengthened because of 9/11.....Yes.......and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...

The press and the antiBush crowd is making it to be a negative and part of some demonic scheme by the Bush administration..absurd.....

Iraq was considered a threat in the Clinton administration and the world too .....If the world community did not think Saddam hussein was a threat, why a decade of sanctions?....Was it because corrupt UN officials and France and Russia were making too much money off this program?

....That is why I point to the Clinton administration, because it IS a Democrat vs Republican thing, or at least an antiBush thing. Bush gets attacked for the same beliefs as the prior administration and the world. Except in a post 9/11 world, Bush took action against a regime that was a threat to all.

Clinton's administration thought Saddam was a GRAVE and MAJOR threat...this belief was not solely that of the Bush administration......

Clinton bombed him twice, almost launched an invasion, fought in the U.N security council for tougher sanctions and the enforcement of existing sanctions, and spoke freely and publicly about the threat of Iraq.....would they have done so if they thought Iraq was not a major threat?

In addition, the Clinton administration believed the Iraqi threat was growing in the last days of office....just reference some of Abright's comments.....

Again, I point this out simply to dispel the bullshit that Bush, and Bush alone had a hard on for Hussein.......if you want to believe Iraq never posed a threat, that is fine.....but to simply say Bush was the only one is not being objective or considering the facts...

In addition, can you fault the Bush team to look into Iraq after 9/11 for connections??....it was widely believed in the intelligence community that AL Qaeda did not have the capacity to pull off such a monstrous attack without state sponsorship.....knowing what we did about Iraq, would it not have been foolish to explore this possibility?

In addition, if anyone believes that AL Qaeda and other terrorist groups operate independently of state sponsorship, they are on Mars.....

Let's also not forget that Iraq tried assassinating President Bush.......the left and Bush haters love to talk about "Daddy's revenge" but they leave out the important element that this was a US President.....an act of war

With respects to Pre-emptive action...I agree with you...that policy can be dangerous if intelligence is not perfect....but intelligence is never perfect, and never will be.....and pre-emption can take many forms. Like I said, there are plenty of people who now wish Clinton had taken action on imperfect intelligence.

And while I pointed out the failures of the CIA, I also noted hat we never hear of their success either. That must be kept in mind.

Judgements have to be made on the best available information, and the dots need to be connected as best as possible. A 9/11 lesson learned is that if you wait for the "perfect" intelligence,, the results could be deadly for our national security. This is where leadership comes into place.

I find it interesting that you would have supported a pre-emtive attack on Afghanistan...Would you have prior to 9/11?....because most Americans and the world would not have, despite the data we had on AL Qaeda

The 9/11 panel has seen the Clinton team using faulty intelligence and a lack of support for a pre-emptive attack as their defense for not being more pro-active.....think about that in the context of the Bush decision to invade Iraq......

Intelligence from EVERYONE that he had WMD, shooting at our planes every day, using WMD's before, known stockpiles, the refusal to comply with US resolutions, attacking his neighbors, failure to adhere to the 1991 ceasefire agreement, trying to kill a US President, the harboring of known terrorists--including a terrorist from the 1991 WTC bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....

The entire picture of Iraq can only translate into threat.......are there other threats in the world too......of course, but that does not mean you do not take down a threat when you can, and when it makes sense.......and every situation requires a different approach.....

I find it laughable that the Bush haters cry that the U.S. went at it alone (depsite the host of countries supporting the effort), and that more time should have been given to diplomacy......Iraq had over a decade for diplomacy, and it ran its string...it was ineffective and no longer applicable.....Iraq did not respect the diplomatic process, and no one but the regime can be held responsible for that.

And let's not forget that "diplomacy" with Iraq from antiwar countries (France and Russia in particluar) was corrupt. Completely corrupt. Why does the antiwar crowd refuse to recognize this. More and more come out every day as to why these countries were really antiwar, but it is ignored. Just look at what is occurring with the scandal at the U.N. with the Oil for Food program. I notice the antiwar peeps on this board ignore that information.

I also laugh at the Bush haters who say--more can have been done. Diplomacy was ineffective. Sanctions were ineffective (except for the building of palaces). Bombing campigns were ineffective (in some degrees). Encouraging an uprising was ineffective. Coup's were impossible. The Hussein regime needed to end, period.

And let's not also ignore how the Bush haters scream about Bush the unilateralist, but ignore the multi-lateral approach to N Korea, who everyone screams about as a bigger threat. "Well, if we invade Iraq, why North Korea" is a famous cry, and one that could be not be more ignorant and stupid. Different situation, different approach.

And with respects to WMD"s, this was not the only element of the justification for this war. It certainly was the most public, visible and forceful of the elements, but not the only one by any stretch. To say so is simply wrong.

Of course it makes the WMD issue more relevant now that none have been found, especially for the Bush haters. But to fail to recognize the variety of elements used for the justification of this war, and the failure to recognize what it looks like when you take all of that criteria into a whole, and the failure to understand how Iraq fits into the broader war on terror is, at least in my opinion, ignorant.

I think saying "the ends justify the means" is more antiwar bullshit. Sorry. There were too many reasons for the Iraqi war to say this. This is leftist, antiwar spin.

Raver--if you believe Iraq never posed a threat pre-Bush and post-Bush, that is fine. And if you are resting that belief on the lack of WMD's, I can respect that. But don't ignore the many other reasons for this war, and the absolutely tremendous upside it represents for the region, the world, and the national security of the U.S.

For those screaming that the war on terror needs to include winning the war of ideas, well democracy in Iraq sure fits the bill.

P.S. On the AL Qaeda link....Let me just point to one example. Ansar AL Islam. Operated a huge terrorist training camp and operation in Iraq. All trained in Afghanistan and by Iraqi intelligence. Their leader had significant ties to AL Qaeda, and recently wrote the famous letter to AL Qaeda leadership.

Do you think Saddam Hussein, and his brutal police state, did not know this group was operating in Iraq?......And if he did, why would he let them, since AL Qaeda is against secularists?...because they had a common cause, the Kurds. DOes Iraq and AL Qaeda share any other common cuases you know about?

:clap2:

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by siceone

I gave up on religion a long time ago bro sorry there's just too many contradictions with real facts...

except when it comes to gay marraige. oh and abstaining until marriage (oh wait...nevermind).

youre the one that brought up your catholic beliefs and put them out here in the marriage debate. I was just wondering how far the loyalties to your beliefs go.....if you are just picking and choosing what to beleive.

personally, i'm not catholic, so i dont give to shits what the pope thinks.

[siceone]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

except when it comes to gay marraige. oh and abstaining until marriage (oh wait...nevermind).

youre the one that brought up your catholic beliefs and put them out here in the marriage debate. I was just wondering how far the loyalties to your beliefs go.....if you are just picking and choosing what to beleive.

personally, i'm not catholic, so i dont give to shits what the pope thinks.

I said that I was a catholic, Im not too sure there is a manual on catholic public policy if you could please show it to me... I thought that all you had to do was Love god and follow his commandments TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY... Im sorry Im not a perfect catholic.

Do I belive that gays should be allowed to marry in the church, That's up to the church. personally I don't see a purpose to marriage if there's no children involved and yes I have said to many straight people who didn't want to have kids, why get married. the purpose of the institution of marriage is to serve children so they have an extra legal and moral wieght of assurance they grow up with a mother and a father. That's what the mechanism is for in my opinion.

you're also implying that I have to belive in the catholic church all or nothing to be a good person?

The only thing I put out there was the fact I was raised catholic EXCUSE ME for not clarifying that I no longer practice. While some of the things the catholic church teaches I agree with some I do not. I that not ok?

Are you saying I have to beat the drum of the catholic church I can't think for my self ? I have to conform to every tenent of a group to which I belong? Does that mean being a black man I have to listen to only rap music and be a democrat and despise jews and agree with afirmative action and tow the line of our so called black leaders are you suggesting that as well?

I mean it's not enough we tollerate things other people do to them selves in this country now we have to accept it and endorse it? people are crying that others don't accept them whole heartedly and think of them as the same or morally Equal TOUGH!!! Im sorry what do you want me to do. what am I going to tell my kids? how am I supposed the teach them the truth and right and wrong if it's all going to be re-written by someone else?

No matter what I will love a person for what he is that's just how I am. That doesn't mean I have to like eveyrthing he does.