Ex White House Press Secretary: a Key Witness to Impeachable Offenses & War Crimes? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 05-29-2008, 11:42 AM

I guess that will do it??? Thanks

ratbastid · 05-29-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I agree that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. However, Saddam was an enemy of the US. Saddam was an on-going threat to peace in the ME.

How do you figure? What you've given me here is administration slogans. Tell me what makes YOU think that, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The people we need to fight are fighting us in Iraq.

Well they are NOW! WE opened the door for them! Saddam was keeping them OUT of Iraq! Different "thems". The "them" we attacked never attacked us. And we've killed tens of thousands of them who never had anything to do with attacking US interests before WE attacked THEM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I would never use the word "innocent" regarding Saddam.

Was Saddam Hussein guilty of being behind the 9/11 attacks? Or was he.... ?

In Bushworld, they're all muslims, so they're all enemy. They're counting on American stupidity and jingoism. The fact that you're not questioning this troubles me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

People not in the administration had the same view of Saddam as Bush. Two were the Clintons.

And that makes it right because....? I didn't buy it when they were selling it, and neither did my presidential candidate of choice. Besides, what a certain presidential hopeful Senator from New York said on the floor when she was trying to look tough on terror shouldn't necessarily be construed as "having the same view".

You were lied to, and you believed it. That's tragic. What's more tragic is, you're clinging to the lie.

roachboy · 05-29-2008, 12:42 PM

ace, darling, it is amazing to me that you are trying to debate the underlying question of the status of the rationales for the war in iraq...they were transparently false from the outset. there is an overwhelming amount of documentation available about every last facet of the rationale. it is not a debate worth having with you--it is just a kinda sad exercise in being-dissociative on your part.

what you typically do is work versions of teleological fallacy-based argument instead of addressing the problems: if someone says the war was not necessary, you will respond that it was because it happened. that is not an argument.

if someone talks about the false statements concerning the nuclear weapons procurement program or other wmds, you have a rationale.

if someone mentions that the administrations primary selling point for the war--an imaginary linkage between hussein and al qeada and the 9/11/2001 attacks, you dodge the matter and instead focus on hussein being a bad man--which is not in question--but of course there are american-sponsored dictators and american tolerated military juntas the world round and somehow this argument does not obtain for any of them, and there is no basis for statements that hussein was worse than any of them (i don't hear any calls from the right to do anything about burma on humanitarian grounds, for example, even before the storm hit, and they are a really brutal regime=--and you don't want to get me started about places like dr congo/ex-zaire, you really don't). what your arguments amount to are variants on the teleological fallacy again--hussein was the ostensible target, though for reasons that have since proven to be horseshit--and so the invasion was necessary because it happened.

btw i only sometimes use the word "lie" with reference to this mess of rickety-to-imaginary rationalizations for undertaking a total debacle in iraq on the part of the manly men of the neo-con set. a "lie" is a bit too simple a term.

on the other hand, most of the old neocons have scuttled away from bushworld like rats from a sinking ship, leaving only folk like you to carry water, to believe, to repeat.

=======

o yeah, i forgot one category the bush people are using against mclellan--"disgruntled"---which in the land of memes is associated with postal workers who snap and gun down their coworkers. it's a version of the space-alien kidnapping thesis, the replacement with a "leftist blogger"--a neat-o little residuum of the bad old days with bush admin pathologization of dissent had traction.

meanwhile, george the dissociator continues trying to tell people that iraq is really world war 2 with the difference that iraq, unlike world war 2, isn't over.

funny stuff.

aceventura3 · 05-29-2008, 02:12 PM

What are you guys trying to accomplish. Nothing I say will convince you that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, nothing you can say will convince me that it was the wrong thing to do. I stated that my dislike of Saddam pre-dates Bush, I would have had our military march into Baghdad during the Gulf War. Every time Saddam defied UN mandates, inspections, ordered shots at our military, etc, I felt we should have gone in and taken him out. All this had nothing to do with 9/11 or Bush's "case" for war.

I think that before a lasting peace can be struck in the ME, we have to have control of Iraq. I think the Iraqi people will be better served under their current steps toward democracy. I think Muslims every where in the world will be better served after we stand up to extremists and defeat them. This is just my view, I understand there are those who do not share my view.

If you or anyone supported the Iraqi war because of speeches that referenced bad intelligence, I get your gripe. I just don't think Bush lied, nor have I seen proof of that.

roachboy · 05-29-2008, 02:27 PM

so your take on the bush rationales, such as they were, is as instrumentalized as those fine fellows from the project for a new american century, who are ultimately responsible for this debacle in iraq. they adopted the same line, but without the ridiculous claims that debacle in iraq will serve an edifying function for "muslims every where in the world" and instead were mostly interested in invading iraq as a way of rewinding the first gulf war and effectively telling the united nations to fuck itself, there's a new swaggering amurican sheriff in town blah blah blah--except of course, it's all gone to hell.

but if that's the case, then you really don't care *what* the bush people said at all--and since the end justifies the means, the intelligence was "faulty" rather than knowingly manipulated to justify a decision to invade taken well in advance of any rationale....the end justifies the means.

and of course you would draw no connection between the marketing of this phony case for a debacle and the "democracy" that this farce was supposed to export.

and it seems the you prefer a fantasy scenario as to outcome to anything remotely like an assessment of the actually existing situation. "taking the long view" i think the bush people call that particular type of dissociation.
which would explain why you have no cognizance, seemingly, of the consequences of this debacle for the interests of the united states.
the end justify the means.

and it's all just opinion, man, so anyone can frame in or out whatever information about the world they want.
it's all arbitrary, so the actually existing farce can be referenced as a Giant Edifying Exercise for those benighted "muslims every where in the world."

great.

i'll catch you later, ace.

aceventura3 · 05-29-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so your take on the bush rationales, such as they were, is as instrumentalized as those fine fellows from the project for a new american century, who are ultimately responsible for this debacle in iraq. they adopted the same line, but without the ridiculous claims that debacle in iraq will serve an edifying function for "muslims every where in the world" and instead were mostly interested in invading iraq as a way of rewinding the first gulf war and effectively telling the united nations to fuck itself, there's a new swaggering amurican sheriff in town blah blah blah--except of course, it's all gone to hell.

"...it's all gone to hell" - not sure that is a observation. I don't know who or what "a new american century" is. It is true that I have no respect for the UN.

Quote:

but if that's the case, then you really don't care *what* the bush people said at all--

Ding, ding, ding, ding - give that man a prize. How many times, how many ways have I said that regarding invading Iraq?

Quote:

and since the end justifies the means, the intelligence was "faulty" rather than knowingly manipulated to justify a decision to invade taken well in advance of any rationale....the end justifies the means.

If I were President I would have taken Saddam out long before 9/11. If you are suggesting that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse for taking out Saddam, I have not seen proof of that and I don't think he used 9/11 when he got authorization to use military force from Congress. He clearly gave his justification.

Quote:

and of course you would draw no connection between the marketing of this phony case for a debacle and the "democracy" that this farce was supposed to export.

The case is real, you just don't agree. The case was real even without nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi government proves to be a farce, I would agree that we have failed.

Quote:

and it seems the you prefer a fantasy scenario as to outcome to anything remotely like an assessment of the actually existing situation. "taking the long view" i think the bush people call that particular type of dissociation.
which would explain why you have no cognizance, seemingly, of the consequences of this debacle for the interests of the united states.
the end justify the means.

Yet, the Dems have their leading Presidential candidate who has not been to Iraq recently making speeches and judgments about what he would do.

Quote:

and it's all just opinion, man, so anyone can frame in or out whatever information about the world they want.

I give the basis for my opinions. I respond to questions. I read opposing opinions and views. I look objectively at facts. You saying its just opinion is a cop-out, isn't?

Quote:

it's all arbitrary, so the actually existing farce can be referenced as a Giant Edifying Exercise for those benighted "muslims every where in the world."

great.

I was paraphrasing McClellan. I though his comment was a bit over the top too.

Quote:

i'll catch you later, ace.

Why do you torment yourself so? Be aware, I will be the same condescending, frustratingly arrogant, SOB, the next time you catch me. But I bet that is why you really, deep inside, love me.

Willravel · 05-29-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't know who or what "a new american century" is.

How can you have been in TFPolitics so long and not read about the Project for the New American Century?

aceventura3 · 05-30-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

How can you have been in TFPolitics so long and not read about the Project for the New American Century?

I confess to not read every word written here. After doing a google search on the phrase I found that it is some kind of "neo-conservative" think tank. I generally form my own opinions and do my own thinking.

roachboy · 05-30-2008, 06:58 AM

you should check them out, ace---i think for what it's worth alot about my reactions to your posts will become clearer to you if you know what they're about.

dc_dux · 05-30-2008, 07:12 AM

The PNAC (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Feith, Armitage, Perle) were the architects of the Bush policy on Iraq (and beyond) from his first day in office (actually well before..they tried to convince Clinton to undertake the same foly of inviading Iraq).

To shrug them off as "some kind of neocon think tank" leaves a gaping hole in one's knowledge of recent foreign policy decision making.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the PNAC website has been taken down.

aceventura3 · 05-30-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

To shrug them off as "some kind of neocon think tank" leaves a gaping hole in one's knowledge of recent foreign policy decision making.

I think your your comment here is a form of intellectual dishonesty. You seem to suggest that lacking knowledge of PNAC as an organization means there is a problem with having an informed view of recent foreign policy decision making. I don't think you can make the logical connection supporting your view here and that it is a very sloppy attempt at an insult. I am sure you can do better.

roachboy · 05-30-2008, 07:53 AM

nonsense, ace.
it is simply the case that you cannot understand the way in which the iraq debacle played out without knowing about pnac. you can't do it--at least not if you are actually interested in stuff that happens in the actually existing world.

this is not the same as saying that you cannot have arrived at your views expect by way of the pnac--there are two different questions here. don't conflate them and then get all snippy because you cannot keep separate issues separate.

aceventura3 · 05-30-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

nonsense, ace.
it is simply the case that you cannot understand the way in which the iraq debacle played out without knowing about pnac. you can't do it--at least not if you are actually interested in stuff that happens in the actually existing world.

That is BS. Now I challenge you or DC to prove it. What is the most essential information that one needs to know about PNAC that would support your claim?

Quote:

this is not the same as saying that you cannot have arrived at your views expect by way of the pnac--there are two different questions here. don't conflate them and then get all snippy because you cannot keep separate issues separate.

We will never have a full understanding of the behind the scenes decision making that lead us to war. I think we all know that. People will not publicly present an unbiased view of their decision making. I always view this kind of information with suspicion, don't you?

roachboy · 05-30-2008, 08:27 AM

well, ace, i'll leave that to your research skills. use them. it's not that hard.
i've got some stuff to do outside.

try it for yourself--searches are easy peasy.

dc_dux · 05-30-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

try it for yourself--searches are easy peasy.

only if you search with an open mind and an interest in learning rather than finding other opinions that support what you "think" you know.

Willravel · 05-30-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

intellectual dishonesty.

It's the word of the day!

...sorry...

aceventura3 · 05-30-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's the word of the day!

How about "snippy", I have been called many things in my life but "snippy" is a first. I always considered myself a "big dawg"

"snippy"? Now that was pretty offensive.

roachboy · 05-30-2008, 12:34 PM

ace--i didn't know about the size queen dimension of your persona.
live and learn.
live and learn.

aceventura3 · 05-30-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace--i didn't know about the size queen dimension of your persona.
live and learn.
live and learn.

I actually prefer exchanges on the issues rather than on my personal flaws and attributes.

roachboy · 05-30-2008, 01:32 PM

i dont know any of your personal flaws and attributes, ace.
i just know what you posted two posts ago.
all this by the bye.
it hardly matters.

Willravel · 05-30-2008, 02:02 PM

Getting back on track...

Ace: You read up on the PNAC? I'm curious as to your impression.

host · 05-30-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

That is BS. Now I challenge you or DC to prove it. What is the most essential information that one needs to know about PNAC that would support your claim?

We will never have a full understanding of the behind the scenes decision making that lead us to war. I think we all know that. People will not publicly present an unbiased view of their decision making. I always view this kind of information with suspicion, don't you?

WTF, ace??????? These are my posts about why PNAC is so relevant, just in the past 1-1/2 months..... others have posted about PNAC, too....

May 20: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2453901

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

......After this was published, one year earlier, in 2000:

[PDF]
Why Another Defense Review
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
America must defend
its homeland.
During the Cold War, ...... catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a. new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and ...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

May 18: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2453007

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

......and dc_dux, if every Bush appointee authored or signed a position paper, shortly before 9/11. pointing out the need for a "catalyzing event", a Pearl Harbor level, attack, inside the US to "get er done"....would that be a relevant consideration? How 'bout if only half of three thousand political employees signed or authored such a paper.....how many would have to do that, and then move to prevent. obstruct, or interfere with an investigation, after the catalyzing event happened, for you to alter your position, at all?

They just got lucky....got their wish, huh?

May 18: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2453000

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

dx_dux....Zelikow co-authored a "Pearl Harbor" event, position paper....

Ten of the authors/signatories who wrote the same crap two years later, end up running the Bush administration, a year after their "catalyzing event", lament:

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200303151...ac_030310.html
The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

March 10 [2003]— Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."....

May 18: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2452981

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

....Can anyone make an argument that it is easy to believe that the Bush administration just happened to place assholes who authored and or signed off on policy papers, in effing stereo, that focused on "Pearl Harbor level", catalyzing events, fitting their policy concerns and visions....and independent to their taking power, a "Pearl Harbor" event just coincidentally happened, less than nine months into their term in office?.....

May 15: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2451077

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news...-2330453.shtml
10/4/06
Protests, insults disrupt Kristol 9/11 speech

By Cara Henis

Page 1 of 1

William Kristol speaks about changes in American politics following the events from 9/11 Tuesday evening, while Dean James Steinberg looks on.

A speech by William Kristol, former chief of staff for former vice president Dan Quayle and editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, turned hostile Tuesday when students began hurling insults at Kristol, alleging his and the U.S. government's complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"9/11 is your Pearl Harbor," said one student protestor, referring to a pre-Sept. 11 statement released by the Project for a New American Century, a conservative think tank Kristol chairs.

In a Sept. 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses, " the group wrote, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

April 12: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2431582

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0342,schanberg,47830,1.html
The Widening Crusade
Bush's War Plan Is Scarier Than He's Saying
by Sydney H. Schanberg
October 15 - 21, 2003

.....yet if the Bush White House is going to use its preeminent military force to subdue and neutralize all "evildoers" and adversaries everywhere in the world, the American public should be told now. Such an undertaking would be virtually endless and would require the sacrifice of enormous blood and treasure.

With no guarantee of success. And no precedent in history for such a crusade having lasting effect......

...For those who would dispute the assertion that the Bush Doctrine is a global military-based policy and is not just about liberating the Iraqi people, it's crucial to look back to the policy's origins and examine its founding documents.

The Bush Doctrine did get its birth push from Iraq—specifically from the outcome of the 1991 Gulf war, when the U.S.-led military coalition forced Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait but stopped short of toppling the dictator and his oppressive government. The president then was a different George Bush, the father of the current president. The father ordered the military not to move on Baghdad, saying that the UN resolution underpinning the allied coalition did not authorize a regime change. Dick Cheney was the first George Bush's Pentagon chief. He said nothing critical at the time, but apparently he came to regret the failure to get rid of the Baghdad dictator.

A few years later, in June 1997, a group of neoconservatives formed an entity called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and issued a Statement of Principles. "The history of the 20th Century," the statement said, "should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." One of its formal principles called for a major increase in defense spending "to carry out our global responsibilities today." Others cited the "need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" and underscored "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles." This, the statement said, constituted "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

Among the 25 signatories to the PNAC founding statement were Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff), Donald Rumsfeld (who was also defense secretary under President Ford), and Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's No. 2 at the Pentagon, who was head of the Pentagon policy team in the first Bush presidency, reporting to Cheney, who was then defense secretary). Obviously, this fraternity has been marinating together for a long time. Other signers whose names might ring familiar were Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,
and Norman Podhoretz
.

Three years and several aggressive position papers later—in September 2000, just two months before George W. Bush, the son, was elected president—the PNAC put military flesh on its statement of principles with a detailed 81-page report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The report set several "core missions" for U.S. military forces, which included maintaining nuclear superiority, expanding the armed forces by 200,000 active-duty personnel, and "repositioning" those forces "to respond to 21st century strategic realities."

The most startling mission is described as follows: "Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." The report depicts these potential wars as "large scale" and "spread across [the] globe."

Another escalation proposed for the military by the PNAC is to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."

As for homeland security, the PNAC report says: "Develop and deploy global missile defenses
to defend the American homeland
and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world. Control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service—U.S. Space Forces—with the mission of space control."

Perhaps the eeriest sentence in the report is found on page 51: "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."....

aceventura3 · 06-01-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Getting back on track...

Ace: You read up on the PNAC? I'm curious as to your impression.

I don't know what is real, exaggerated, politicized, or made up, regarding the organization from the websites I have visited. It seems the constant is that the organization is or was made up of a group of conservatives with a belief in maintaining and using US military strength. It seems that the philosophy of the people in the organization comes from the Reagan administration and has influenced Bush 41 and Bush 43.

I still don't understand the relevance of the organization. If I want to know what Chaney thinks about our military and how he would like it used in the world, all I have to do is trace his very public track record and public statements on the subject. He has not been deceptive on this topic, nor has he been deceptive about his views regarding executive power. Bush has not been deceptive either. I don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

WTF, ace???????

Host, I am one of the people in the world who felt Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power during the Gulf War. If I had been an elected official with any influence, I would have made the case for his removal. I would have had a plan for his removal and I would have had conditions under which I would have wanted those plans executed - given the fact we failed to march into Bagdad during the Gulf War. If this is what you fault PNAC for, o.k. - I get your point of view. Again, I just don't have a problem with having a plan and conditions under which the plan should be executed. My guess is that even Jimmy Carter had military plans and conditions for execution that he gave thought to. I agree, that these plans and the conditions for execution may not look "pretty" when published.

host · 06-01-2008, 12:33 PM

ace, this is pretty simple....a confluence of neocons, in two position papers between 1998 and 2000, pushed for the removal of Saddam Hussein by US military forces, as well as ramping up US military spending and forces for a new aggressive military and foreign policy. Both papers specified the need for a "catalyzing event", a new "PEarl Harbor", as a trigger to "get 'er done".... and Bush appointed people from the PNAC group, from Cheney to Libby, to Rumsfeld, to run his administration. Then, he appointed a commission to investigate 9/11, with Zelikow, a man who touted the need for both a new "Pearl Harbor", and a curtailment of civil liberties, following the attack, to be the committee's executive director. Recently, an NY Times reporter authors a book that claims Zelikow interfered with the investigation.

The president himself, is documented below, repeating over and over, inaccurate statements intended to tie "al-Qaeda in Iraq", to Saddam Hussein and his government.

ace, some of us here show you EXACTLY why we have no faith in this administration's veracity and policies, and you show us...IBD editorials.....

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200303151...ac_030310.html
The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

March 10 [2003]— Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

<h3>And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.

....Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration.</h3>
As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other signatories include William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.......

ace, not only was the president enormously deceptive about his rationale for war in Iraq, he overloaded his administration with PNAC members in key defense and foreign policy positions, folks who all signed a PNAC position paper that stated that aggressive military policies that they intended to pursue would come about "slowly"....unless there was ""some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.""

President Bush, after resisiting a formal investigation of the 9/11 attacks, appointed a sham commission to do an investigation, literally years after the attacks took place. Appointed executive director of the 9/11 commisssion, Mr. Zelikow, who was one of three authors of a 1998 policy paper that stated:

Quote:

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/p...orming%20Event

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/30/zelikow-interfered/

Key 9/11 Commission Staffer Held Secret Meetings With Rove, Scaled Back Criticisms of White House

A forthcoming book by NYT reporter Philip Shenon — “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation” — asserts that former 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow interfered with the 9/11 report.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

<h3>I still don't understand the relevance of the organization...... Bush has not been deceptive either. I don't get it.</h3>

Quote:

Press Conference by the President August 21, 2006. Press Conference by the President ...... who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- <h3>who had relations with Zarqawi. ...</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html

Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006
....Martha.

Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. <h3>And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that? </h3>

THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. <h3>I never said there was an operational relationship. .....</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html

They lied about why they invaded Iraq....but they were altar boys concerning what happened on 9/11?

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html

.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....

Here's Dick Cheney, just weeks later, contradicting Bush and Tony Snow:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006

Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola

........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......

But.....here's Dick Cheney, seven months later....same lie...:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html

So those are very real problems and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point seems to me simply would play right into the hands of al Qaeda.

Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, 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. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ..

It's kind of difficult to overlook or overemphais the background and history of their al Zarqawi lie and their attempts to link Saddam to al Zarqawi:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2004

President Discusses Economy, Iraq in Cabinet Meeting
Remarks by the President After Meeting with His Cabinet
The Cabinet Room

.... I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Deb, why don't you lead it off?

Q Mr. President, why does the administration continue to insist that Saddam had a relationship with al Qaeda, when even you have

denied any connection between Saddam and September 11th. And now the September 11th Commission says that there was no

collaborative relationship at all.

THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there

was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between

Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence

officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two. ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040618-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2004

President Bush Salutes Soldiers in Fort Lewis, Washington
Remarks by the President to the Military Personnel
Fort Lewis, Washington

.....And we're beginning to see results of people stepping up to defend themselves. Iraqi police and Civil Defense Corps have

captured several wanted terrorists, including Umar Boziani. He was a key lieutenant of this killer named Zarqawi who's ordering

the suiciders inside of Iraq. By the way,
''he was the fellow who was in Baghdad at times prior to our arrival. He was operating out of Iraq. He was an Al Qaeda associate.

See, he was there before we came. He's there after we came. And we'll find him.''.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006

THE PRESIDENT:..We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1

Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab

By John McWethy

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)

President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda

operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to

administration officials....

http://web.archive.org/web/200304012...?bid=3&pid=371

Capital Games By David Corn
Powell's One Good Reason To Bomb Iraq--UPDATED
02/06/2003 @ 12:12am

.....But here's the first question that struck me after Powell's presentation:
why hasn't the United States bombed the so-called Zarqawi camp shown in the slide? The administration obviously knows where it is, and Powell spoke of it in the present tense.

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003 by GREG MILLER

SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

Why not hit terrorist camp?

Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week

describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with

explosives and poisons.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why

have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in

there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound

in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Host, I am one of the people in the world who felt Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power during the Gulf War. If I had been an elected official with any influence, I would have made the case for his removal. I would have had a plan for his removal and I would have had conditions under which I would have wanted those plans executed - given the fact we failed to march into Bagdad during the Gulf War. If this is what you fault PNAC for, o.k. - I get your point of view. Again, I just don't have a problem with having a plan and conditions under which the plan should be executed. My guess is that even Jimmy Carter had military plans and conditions for execution that he gave thought to. I agree, that these plans and the conditions for execution may not look "pretty" when published.

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200302070...rald.com/27735

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
Sept. 22, 2002

By Neil Mackay

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

aceventura3 · 06-02-2008, 07:27 AM

So what do you have above that is not summed up in my post #63? Is it simply shocking to believe that people would want Saddam out of power, have a plan, and conditions under which the plan would be triggered?

Why do you think I voted for Bush? I voted for him because I believed he had a plan to address Iraq. I felt Iraq was a problem, I thought it was an on-going threat that was going to get worse. After 9/11 there was no doubt in my mind that if we failed to act decisively against - not only al qaeda, but also the defiance of Saddam we would have faced a much bigger problem in the future. In that regard 9/11 and Iraq are linked. I am guessing the subtlety of that link is lost on most people who felt Bush falsely linked the two.

How many times has the administration been asked about links between Iraq an 9/11? Is the real problem with the obsession with the question, which has cause a belief in the public, which is then blamed on the administration? Or is the problem with a person "cherry picking" quotes related to a broader ME strategy and relating it to 9/11 direct involvement?

I know you will never acknowledge an understanding of how a person can see 9/11 as a legitimate occurrence prompting a need to immediately stop Saddam's defiance, but there are people who hold the view - like it or not. I think your real opinion is that of simply disagreeing with that strategic view.

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 07:49 AM

Ace, it wasn't our (read: the US) responsibility to decide whether or not to remove Saddam back in 1992 (or in 2003, for that matter). It was the UNs, but they decided it wasn't worth the risk. What risk? Read the news between 2003 and 2008.

While the UN is far from perfect, they seem to be a lot better at the whole "geopolitics" and "war" thing than we are. They saw what many saw before 2003: removing Saddam Hussein would mean civil war that's unresolvable from an outside force.

aceventura3 · 06-02-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Ace, it wasn't our (read: the US) responsibility to decide whether or not to remove Saddam back in 1992 (or in 2003, for that matter). It was the UNs, but they decided it wasn't worth the risk. What risk? Read the news between 2003 and 2008.

I understand that. However, I have no faith or trust in the UN -either now or then.

Adding to my confusion - Given PNAC or more specifically the membership and the connections with Bush - how can anyone who knew say they were deceived? Seems to me that anyone who had any knowledge of PNAC or its members had to know they were going to attack Iraq and use the US military to maintain US dominance in the world. I was not deceived because I supported the invasion of Iraq. So, who was deceived, who was "lied" to?

Quote:

While the UN is far from perfect, they seem to be a lot better at the whole "geopolitics" and "war" thing than we are. They saw what many saw before 2003: removing Saddam Hussein would mean civil war that's unresolvable from an outside force.

I think our initial occupation strategy had a material flaw that was exploited. Although there was initial progress, thing took a turn for the worst pretty fast.

Quote:

Feb. 22, 2006, is the day the Bush administration says everything in Iraq changed.

Before that day, military and administration officials frequently explain, Iraq was moving in the right direction: National elections had been held, and a government was forming. But then the bombing of the golden dome shrine in Samarra derailed that positive momentum and unleashed a wave of brutal sectarian violence.

Even now, more than a year later, the president and other administration officials cite Samarra as a turning point -- "a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal," President Bush called it in a March 6 news conference. "One of the key changes in Iraq last year," White House spokesman Tony Snow said in January.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201760_pf.html

We should have been better prepared for this type of an event.

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I understand that. However, I have no faith or trust in the UN -either now or then.

I see no reason to have more faith in the US government than the UN. In fact, I'd say there's good reason to trust the UN in military matters over our own politicians.

You do have to admit that the UN was right about Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Adding to my confusion - Given PNAC or more specifically the membership and the connections with Bush - how can anyone who knew say they were deceived? Seems to me that anyone who had any knowledge of PNAC or its members had to know they were going to attack Iraq and use the US military to maintain US dominance in the world. I was not deceived because I supported the invasion of Iraq. So, who was deceived, who was "lied" to?

Congress was deceived (intentionally or not) about the defensive and offensive capabilities of Saddam Hussein. They were also deceived about Iraq's intent. We the people were also deceived. Or at least the attempt was made, some people did see through the false information.

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not seeking them. There were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq whatsoever, in fact the idea of Saddam supporting "radical Islam" ran contrary to everything we knew about his devotion to a secular government and military.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think our initial occupation strategy had a material flaw that was exploited. Although there was initial progress, thing took a turn for the worst pretty fast.

The only real success of the Iraq War (in 2003) was that our military knew what it was doing in the beginning. We had no business being there, but once ordered our military took the IRG apart piece by piece in a matter of hours. This is why I've continually said that our troops were victorious in what they were asked to do. The real issue is with an occupying force and a determined local population always has the same eventual result. There are literally thousands of years of military history that verified the eventual outcome of invading and occupying. That it was a surprise for anyone familiar with war is astonishing. Even a liberal, pacifist peacenik like me it's been obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201760_pf.html

We should have been better prepared for this type of an event.

I'm afraid that's a bit misleading. Things were going badly only months after the invasion. Mismanagement of reconstruction was starting to surface in the world media, violence was on the rise, and the exodus was starting.

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think our initial occupation strategy had a material flaw that was exploited. Although there was initial progress, thing took a turn for the worst pretty fast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201760_pf.html

We should have been better prepared for this type of an event.

ace....thats a convenient excuse for the incompetence and failure to plan for an occupation, including the failure to recognize the historic animosities between Sunni and Shiites and the likelihood that our invasion would serve as both a recruitment tool for al Queda and a justification for Iran to exert and strengthen its influence over Iraqi internal politics

There was no detailed (phase IV) post-Saddam occupation strategy before we got there...it was "unknown" other than a consensus among DoD and White Officials officials that it would require only a small US force and last a matter of months:

Quote:

The U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq postulated in August 2002 that the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006, according to the Command's PowerPoint briefing slides....

The PowerPoint slides, prepared by CentCom planners for Gen. Tommy Franks under code name POLO STEP, for briefings during 2002 for President Bush, the NSC, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the JCS, and Franks' commanders, refer to the "Phase IV" post-hostilities period as "UNKNOWN" and "months" in duration, but assume that U.S. forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq within 45 months of the invasion (i.e. December 2006).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm

aceventura3 · 06-02-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....thats a convenient excuse for the incompetence and failure to plan for an occupation, including the failure to recognize the historic animosities between Sunni and Shiites and the likelihood that our invasion would serve as both a recruitment tool for al Queda and a justification for Iran to exert and strengthen its influence over Iraqi internal politics

There was no detailed (phase IV) post-Saddam occupation strategy before we got there...it was "unknown" other than a consensus among DoD and White Officials officials that it would require a small US force and last only a few months:

Do you agree that even the greatest of the worlds military minds have or could have suffered defeat due to exploitable weaknesses in their plans?

Your answer will help me understand your use of the word "incompetence" in this context. Yes, it is a semantics thing again. But I am trying to understand

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 10:40 AM

nah.,...I'll pass,ace.

I made my point and dont see the purpose of going round and round with you.

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 10:42 AM

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the Bush Administration/DoD and military leadership from the generals down. The former are responsible for setting goals, the latter for attaining them. Had clear goals been provided, I have little doubt that we'd be a lot closer to them if not there. Our military is surprisingly effective.

And "restore peace" isn't a goal.

aceventura3 · 06-02-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

nah.,...I'll pass,ace.

I made my point and dont see the purpose of going round and round with you.

The purpose of my question is to see if you can support your claim of "incompetence". Personally I think there is a big difference between incompetence and and suffering a temporary set back in a military context. Looks like you are not willing or able to support your claim, I understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the Bush Administration/DoD and military leadership from the generals down. The former are responsible for setting goals, the latter for attaining them. Had clear goals been provided, I have little doubt that we'd be a lot closer to them if not there. Our military is surprisingly effective.

And "restore peace" isn't a goal.

What was our goal during WWII? The higher up in authority you go, the more general the military goal becomes. I am not aware of any military that has had a "perfect" record (depending on how you define that), there have always been ebbs and flows during war.

dc_dux · 06-02-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Looks like you are not willing or able to support your claim, I understand.

yep....I concede....you are the big dawg

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What was our goal during WWII? The higher up in authority you go, the more general the military goal becomes. I am not aware of any military that has had a "perfect" record (depending on how you define that), there have always been ebbs and flows during war.

The overall goal in WWII was abundantly clear and the methods by which to meet those goals were mostly obvious. I couldn't say the same of Iraq. It'd be intellectually dishonest!

aceventura3 · 06-02-2008, 11:59 AM

Here is the key paragraph from the President's address to the nation:

Quote:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

May God bless our country and all who defend her.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030319-17.html

Willravel · 06-02-2008, 12:03 PM

The regime was gone literally overnight. That was a victory. Yay military. Leaving alone the fact we had no business removing the regime, it was done and it was done properly.

The problem came immediately after that. The military basically said, "Okay, what now?" Then there were some garbled messages about WMDs and al Queady links... then it was about liberation, then democracy. Now it's about ending the civil war we caused.

aceventura3 · 06-02-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The regime was gone literally overnight. That was a victory. Yay military. Leaving alone the fact we had no business removing the regime, it was done and it was done properly.

The problem came immediately after that. The military basically said, "Okay, what now?" Then there were some garbled messages about WMDs and al Queady links... then it was about liberation, then democracy. Now it's about ending the civil war we caused.

I agree regarding the lack of clarity regarding the occupation. I think there were some in the administration who had no interest in occupying and re-building Iraq. On the other-hand we had Powell's famous line - "you break it, you fix it". I do think our objectives with the occupation evolved. In hindsight, I think we know that we should have committed more troops and resources or left and let the power vacuum be filled and let our response depend on what happened. Leaving a power vacuum would have been and would be un-humanitarian in my view. Initially I had mixed feelings about the occupation and later, I agreed with Powell regarding the occupation in the context of "fixing it". And I still don't see how a person, who says he cares about people, like Obama, unconditionally say that he will remove the troops from Iraq without consideration for a power struggle that could lead to who knows what. Prior to the surge I felt our national commitment to "fixing it" was lacking. Now that conditions are going well, I think we need to let the occupation run its course.

I understand the view of those who did not think we had the right to invade Iraq and then occupy the country. I also understand the dilemma with reconciling the concept of preemptive war with national defense as outlined in the Constitution. I think these two issues are still very compelling for discussion. We just can not seem to get off of the question about Bush being deceptive or not.

ratbastid · 06-02-2008, 03:46 PM

I can tell you haven't actually read Obama's position on Iraq and the Middle East. Whole lot more to it than just pulling troops out. I know the sound bytes you've heard, but that's NOT all he's said.

"Let the occupation run its course", hunh? The term "run its course" comes from the world of medicine--we say that about fevers. When a fever runs its course, it's because the immune system has risen up and driven the invading virus out of the body. Seems an apt analogy...

host · 06-02-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

.....I understand the view of those who did not think we had the right to invade Iraq and then occupy the country. I also understand the dilemma with reconciling the concept of preemptive war with national defense as outlined in the Constitution. I think these two issues are still very compelling for discussion. We just can not seem to get off of the question about Bush being deceptive or not.

ace, I propose a compromise....I've quote you several times here, all from your posts over on "Obama Must Go to Iraq" thread. The series of quotes begins with you providing "data"....an IBD editorial. Aside from a repetitive list displaying a given year, followed by "There were no terrorist attacks", there were only a couple of assertions, with any specific "data". This was one:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459446

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps he should go just to show he has no fear or concerns about going. Often, visits, orchestrated or not are not for the benefit of the person visiting, but for those who are there. Also, he thinks we are not safer because of the war in Iraq, I think the facts are not consistent with that view.

Here is some data from todays IBD editorial page:

Quote:

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the U.S. and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful.

What follows is a partial history:....

....Here is the record:

2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government....

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...96864997227353

Then, ace, you asked if your data was accurate:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459482

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Is the data accurate? If not how?

The point is not the editorial view of the data, but the data. I know there are different way to look at this question. At what point do you want to focus on that rather than the ad hominem argument.

Been through this. I read IBD daily. I enjoy the way they craft their editorials, they are fun to read. I generally agree with their point of view. I have found that data in the paper and on the editorial page to be accurate.

Do you have anything new regarding IBD? I am going to read the paper again tomorrow, if I come across something that I think will be of interest - guess what - I am going to post it. Your complaints, ad hominem arguments, and personal attacks wont matter. Come on, I know you have it in you - you can do better.

ace, over on the "Obama Must Go to Iraq" thread, directly above this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459604

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

.....I am guilty of "cherry picking". When I support my opinions I purposefully pick the data that supports my opinion. When I form my opinion I look at data from various sources and generally give more weight to data that supports my biases. When my opinion is challenged with data that contradicts my opinion, I consider it and either change my view or I "cherry pick" more information to present, that of course supports my view.

I must be the only one who does this. I am guilty, I tell you, guilty, guilty, guilty. What should my punishment be?

Or, you folks can give me your data, challenge my views, man-up and debate like I know you are capable. Maybe it is just to easy to attack the source, rather than the information.

This is for you Host. this was in IBD a few days ago.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...96780190323947

....I posted this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, even president Bush admits that there is no proof of this, from your IBD editorial's "data"....

Quote:

2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

I've posted both of these, over and over....have they made no impact on you, ace?

....So ace, I replied with what you said you wanted...I specifically challenged one of your data points....and you ignored my challenge. Now, I'm back ace, and the deal is....We Agree to Play, "Stop Me When You Think You Can Establish That I Am Wrong...."

If I had read the IBD editorial you posted ace, and I saw the attempt in it to link al Zarqawi to Saddam and his government, an alarm would have gone off. The following is what we know ace. We know enough to firmly state that only an extremist would write that "data point" in that IBD editorial, because only an extremist, Cheney, has even recently tried to make that connection. Bush himself was stopped cold...he's never attempted it again....watch the video in the bottom quoite box. I've detailed all of their lies that I can locate and link on this one subject ace, but you might call them "misleading statements". I've detailed findings on how they came into being....the WaPo provides a nice explanation in the lower part of the following quote box.

I am expecting ace, that you will stop me, too when you can establish that my posted facts are not in order. Also, ace, notice that, in the first few sentences in the following quote box, the SSCI establishes that congress did not have access to "the same intelligence" that the white house was privy to, before the October, 2002 congressional vote to authorize presidential authority to use military force:

2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq:

Quote:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...-301/sec12.pdf

XII. IRAQ’S LINKS TO TERRORISM A. Intelligence Products Concerning Iraq’s Links to Terrorism (U) The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) produced five primary finished intelligence products on Iraq’s links to terrorism: 0 a September 2001 paper; 0 an October 2001 paper; Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, June 2002; 0 Iraqi Supportfor Terrorism, September 2002 and Iraqi Supportfor Terrorism, January 2003. B. September and October 2001 Papers

(U) Shortly after the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks, the Director of Central Intelligence’s (DCI) Counterterrorism Center (CTC) and the CIA Near East and South Asia office (NESA)37collaborated on a paper on Iraqi links to the September 1lth attacks. This was the CIA’S first attempt to summarize the Iraqi regime’sties to 9/11. The paper was disseminated to President’s Daily Brief (PDB) principals on September 2 1,2001. The Committee was not informed about the existence of this paper until June 2004. According to the CIA, the paper took a “Q&A” approach to the issue of Iraq’s possible links to the September 1lth attacks. (U) Soon afterward, the NESA drafted a paper that broadened the scope of the issue by looking at Iraq’s overall ties to terrorism. The Committee requested a copy of this October 2001 document, but representatives of the DCI declined to provide it, stating: . . .we are declining to provide a copy of the paper. It was drafted in response to a request from a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) recipient, and the final paper was 37 TheNear East and South Asia (NESA) is the CIA Directorate of Intelligence (DI) office responsible for analyzing events in the Near East, including Iraq. Page -304 -

disseminated only to the PDB readership. Accordingly, it is not available for further di~sernination.~~ C. Iraq and al-Qaidu: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, June 2002

(U) Following the publication of the October 2001 paper, the CTC began drafting another paper that would eventually become Iraq and al-Qaidu: Interpreting a Murky Relationship. The paper was drafted based on widely expressed interest on the part of several senior policy makers, according to CIA. Throughout the drafting process (October 2001 to June 2002), the two offices took different approaches to assessing Iraq’s links to terrorism as a result of their different missions and perspectives. According to the CIA’SOmbudsman for Politicization, the CTC was aggressive in drawing connections to try to produce informationthat could be used to support counterterrorism operations,while the NESA took a traditional analytic approach, confirming intelligence with multiple sources and making assessments only based on strongly supported reporting. Analysts worked on several drafts over the eight month drafting period, but CTC management found them unsatisfactory and ultimately produced a draft without NESA’s coordination. (U) The Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) directed that Iraq and ul-Qaida: Interpreting u Murky ReZutionshiy be published on June 21,2002, although it did not reflect the NESA’s views. CTC’s explanation of its approach to this study and the analysts’ differing views were contained in the paper’s Scope Note, which stated: (U) This intelligence assessment responds to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime links to al-Qa’ida. Our approach is purposehlly aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumptionthat any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States. ’*The President’s Daily Brief (PDB) has not been provided to Congress inthe past by the executive branch. Committee staff notes, however, that the National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States (known as the 9-1 1 Commission) reached an agreement with the White House for access to the PDB and other intelligence items. The declination to provide the October 2001 CIA paper is an expansion of the historic practice to include other documents beyond the PDB. The CIA has provided the Committee items included in the PDB as long as they were also published separately as fmished intelligence or in other finished products. -305 -

Page 306

(U) We reviewed intelligence reporting over the past decade to determine whether Iraq had a relationship with aI-Qa’ida and, if so, the dimensions of the relationship. -1 Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa’ida still contains many critical gaps (U) Some analysts concur with the assessment that intelligence reporting provides “no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations,”but believe that the available signs support a conclusionthat Iraq has had sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qaida since the mid-1990s, rather than a relationship with al-Qaida that has developed over time. These analysts would contend that mistrust and conflicting ideologies and goals probably tempered these contacts and severely limited the opportunities for cooperation. These analysts do not rule out that Baghdad sought and obtained a nonaggression agreement or made limited offers of cooperation,training, or even safehaven (ultimately uncorroborated or withdrawn) in an effort to manipulate, penetrate, or otherwise keep tabs on al-Qaida or selected operatives. (U) The NESA believed that this edited Scope Note did not adequately capture the differences between the two offices over the weighing and interpretationof the supporting intelligence reports. (U) The CIA Ombudsman for Politicization received a confidential complaint four days after the paper was published, on June 25,2002, claiming the CTC paper was misleading, in that it did not make clear that it was an uncoordinated product that did not reflect the NESA’s views and assessments. The CIA created the position of Ombudsman for Politicization in 1992 to respond to alleged issues of politicization and analytic distortion. According to the Ombudsman’s Charter, the position serves as an “independent, informal, and confidential counselor for those who have complaints about politicization, biased reporting, or the lack of objective analysis.” The Ombudsman reports directly to the DCI. The complaint and subsequent inquiry is discussed later in this report under Pressure on Intelligence Community Analysts. (U) The Committee Staff interviewed the Deputy Director for Intelligence on the production of this paper, and asked specifically why the analysts’ approach was purposefully aggressive. She explained that:

Page 307

What happened with the “murky paper” was I was asking the people who were writing it to lean far forward and do a speculative piece. If you were going to stretch to the maximum the evidence you had, what could you come up with?.....

D. Alternate Analysis in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defensefor Policy

...... <h3>(U) One of these consultants stated that he was told that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Secretary of Defense were dissatisfied with the intelligence products they were receiving from the Intelligence Community on terrorism and linkages between terrorist groups worldwide.</h3> This individual also stated that he and a colleague had gone to the CTC and to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to review what work they were doing on link analysis and relationshipsbetween terrorist groups and state sponsors. They found that the analysis was not being done, and stated that they believed their requests for assistance were being ignored....

.....(U) On July 22,2002, the DIA detailee sent an e-mail to a Deputy Under Secretary for Policy recounting a meeting that day with a senior advisor to the Under Secretary. The e-mail reported that the senior advisor had said that the Deputy Secretary had told an assistant that he wanted him “. . . to prepare an intel briefing on Iraq and links to al-Qaida for the SecDef and that he was not to tell anyone about it.” The e-mail also referred to “the Iraqi intelligence cell in OUSD(P).” The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy later explained to the Committee that the term “intelligence cell” referred to the PCTEG and other OSD staffers and their study of intelligence reports.

(U) Incorporating the DIA detailee’s work and the analysis done by the two naval reserve officers assigned to the PCTEG, a special assistant from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense created a set of briefing slides in the summer of 2002 that outlined the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) views of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and criticized the Intelligence Community (IC) for its approach to the issue.

(U) The briefing slides contained a “Summary of Known Iraq -al-Qaida Contacts, 1990-2002,” including an item “2001: Prague IIS Chief al-hi meets with Mohammed Atta in April.” Another slide was entitled “FundamentalProblems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information.” It faulted the IC for requiring “juridical evidence” for its findings. It also criticized the IC for “consistent underestimation”of efforts by Iraq and al-Qaida to hide their relationship and for an “assumption that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate.” A “findings” slide summed up the Iraq -al-Qaida relationship as “More than a decade of numerous contacts,” “Multiple areas of cooperation,” “Shared interest and pursuit of WMD,” and “One indication of Iraq coordination with al-Qaida specificallyrelated to 9/ 11.”

(U) One of the naval reservists from the PCTEG and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) detailee to the Policy Support Staff presented the briefing, which was developed by the special assistant from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of Defense in early August 2002.

(U) After the briefing, the Deputy Secretary sent a note to the briefers, the Under Secretary and the Under Secretary’s Special Advisor, which included: That was an excellent briefing. The Secretary was very impressed. He asked us to think about some possible next steps to see if we can illuminate the differences between us and CIA. The goal is not to produce a consensus product, but rather to scrub one another’s arguments. Page -309 -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502263_pf.html
Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.

The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.

But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work......

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/...1105979&page=2

Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief
Former Secretary of State Speaks Out on Being Loyal -- and Being Wrong

....When Walters pressed Powell about that support, given the "mess" that the invasion has yielded, Powell said, "Who knew what the whole mess was going to be like?"

While he said he is glad that Saddam's regime was toppled, Powell acknowledged that he has seen no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attack. "I have never seen a connection. ... I can't think otherwise because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he told Walters. ....

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...q-report_x.htm
Senate Intelligence report finds no Saddam-al-Qaeda
Updated 9/9/2006 4:37 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — Saddam Hussein rejected overtures from al-Qaeda and believed Islamic extremists were a threat to his regime, a reverse portrait of an Iraq allied with Osama bin Laden painted by the Bush White House, a Senate panel has found.

The administration's version was based in part on intelligence that White House officials knew was flawed, according to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing newly declassified documents released by the panel.

The report, released Friday, discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phase...y.pdf#page=112

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, President Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Democrats singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on.

"Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday.

Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin.

"Well, it was much more than that," Levin said. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy."....

Cheney, on the very next day:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
September 10, 2006

Interview of the Vice President by Tim Russert, NBC News, Meet the Press
NBC Studios
Washington, D.C.

......Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Q But the President said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, they are -- there are two totally different propositions here. And people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it's important, I think -- there's a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq's traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.

So you've got Iraq and 9/11: no evidence that there's a connection.<b> You've got Iraq and al Qaeda: testimony from the Director of CIA that there was, indeed, a relationship; Zarqawi in Baghdad, et cetera. Then the --

Q The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact, Saddam --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't seen the report. I haven't had a chance to read it yet --</b>

Q But, Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is --

<b>THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- but the fact is, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02, and was there from then basically until the time we launched into Iraq. ........</b>

<h3>...and Cheney wasn't done...a month later, he was "at it", again:</h3>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006

Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola

........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......

<h3>...and Cheney STILL wasn't done...six months later, he was "at it", again:</h3>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
April 5, 2007

....So those are very real problems and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point seems to me simply would play right into the hands of al Qaeda.

Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, 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. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ..

<h3>...and Cheney STILL wasn't done...two months later, he was "at it", again:</h3>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20070603.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
June 3, 2007

Vice President's Remarks at the Wyoming Boys State Conference

The Vice President:....The worst terrorist we had in Iraq was a guy named Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian by birth; served time in a Jordanian prison as a terrorist, was let out on amnesty. Then he went to Afghanistan and ran one of those training camps back in the late '90s that trained terrorists. Then when we launched into Afghanistan after 9/11, he was wounded, and fled to Baghdad for medical treatment, and then set up shop in Iraq. So he operated in Jordan, he operated in Afghanistan, then he moved to Iraq....

History of Bush's lies and distortions about al Zarqawi and his relationship with Saddam's government:

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1

Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab

By John McWethy

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)

President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to administration officials....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

...We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003

President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"

.....Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.

The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. The same network has plotted terrorism against France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was caught producing poisons in London.....

http://web.archive.org/web/200304012...?bid=3&pid=371
Capital Games By David Corn
Powell's One Good Reason To Bomb Iraq--UPDATED
02/06/2003 @ 12:12am

.....But here's the first question that struck me after Powell's presentation:
why hasn't the United States bombed the so-called Zarqawi camp shown in the slide? The administration obviously knows where it is, and Powell spoke of it in the present tense.

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003 by GREG MILLER

SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ
Why not hit terrorist camp?
Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003

President's Radio Address

.... Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030306-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 6, 2003

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

,,,,THE PRESIDENT: ,...Colin Powell, in an eloquent address to the United Nations, described some of the information we were at liberty of talking about. He mentioned a man named Al Zarqawi, who was in charge of the poison network. He's a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. There is a poison plant in Northeast Iraq. To assume that Saddam Hussein knew none of this was going on is not to really understand the nature of the Iraqi society.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2004

... THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.

I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.

No, he was a threat, and the world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040618-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2004

President Bush Salutes Soldiers in Fort Lewis, Washington
Remarks by the President to the Military Personnel
Fort Lewis, Washington

.....And we're beginning to see results of people stepping up to defend themselves. Iraqi police and Civil Defense Corps have captured several wanted terrorists, including Umar Boziani. He was a key lieutenant of this killer named Zarqawi who's ordering the suiciders inside of Iraq. By the way,
''he was the fellow who was in Baghdad at times prior to our arrival. He was operating out of Iraq. He was an Al Qaeda associate.

See, he was there before we came. He's there after we came. And we'll find him.''.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040923-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 23, 2004

President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi Press Conference

...PRESIDENT BUSH: Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein were still in power. This is a man who harbored terrorists -- Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006

THE PRESIDENT:..We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
Press Conference by the President
August 21, 2006.

the President:...... who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
Press Gaggle Spetember 12, 2006

.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006

Watch the video: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/

THE PRESIDENT:....Martha.

Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....

Lastly, ace....if the rationale for invading and occupying Iraq is as strong and straightforward as you maintain, why do you think they spewed all the disingenuous bullshit of the example of Zarqawi....it seemed be the "go to" example, offered by both Bush and Cheney, for invading and occupying Iraq.

05-29-2008, 11:42 AM	#41 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I guess that will do it??? Thanks __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-29-2008, 12:42 PM	#43 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace, darling, it is amazing to me that you are trying to debate the underlying question of the status of the rationales for the war in iraq...they were transparently false from the outset. there is an overwhelming amount of documentation available about every last facet of the rationale. it is not a debate worth having with you--it is just a kinda sad exercise in being-dissociative on your part. what you typically do is work versions of teleological fallacy-based argument instead of addressing the problems: if someone says the war was not necessary, you will respond that it was because it happened. that is not an argument. if someone talks about the false statements concerning the nuclear weapons procurement program or other wmds, you have a rationale. if someone mentions that the administrations primary selling point for the war--an imaginary linkage between hussein and al qeada and the 9/11/2001 attacks, you dodge the matter and instead focus on hussein being a bad man--which is not in question--but of course there are american-sponsored dictators and american tolerated military juntas the world round and somehow this argument does not obtain for any of them, and there is no basis for statements that hussein was worse than any of them (i don't hear any calls from the right to do anything about burma on humanitarian grounds, for example, even before the storm hit, and they are a really brutal regime=--and you don't want to get me started about places like dr congo/ex-zaire, you really don't). what your arguments amount to are variants on the teleological fallacy again--hussein was the ostensible target, though for reasons that have since proven to be horseshit--and so the invasion was necessary because it happened. btw i only sometimes use the word "lie" with reference to this mess of rickety-to-imaginary rationalizations for undertaking a total debacle in iraq on the part of the manly men of the neo-con set. a "lie" is a bit too simple a term. on the other hand, most of the old neocons have scuttled away from bushworld like rats from a sinking ship, leaving only folk like you to carry water, to believe, to repeat. ======= o yeah, i forgot one category the bush people are using against mclellan--"disgruntled"---which in the land of memes is associated with postal workers who snap and gun down their coworkers. it's a version of the space-alien kidnapping thesis, the replacement with a "leftist blogger"--a neat-o little residuum of the bad old days with bush admin pathologization of dissent had traction. meanwhile, george the dissociator continues trying to tell people that iraq is really world war 2 with the difference that iraq, unlike world war 2, isn't over. funny stuff. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-29-2008, 02:12 PM	#44 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	What are you guys trying to accomplish. Nothing I say will convince you that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, nothing you can say will convince me that it was the wrong thing to do. I stated that my dislike of Saddam pre-dates Bush, I would have had our military march into Baghdad during the Gulf War. Every time Saddam defied UN mandates, inspections, ordered shots at our military, etc, I felt we should have gone in and taken him out. All this had nothing to do with 9/11 or Bush's "case" for war. I think that before a lasting peace can be struck in the ME, we have to have control of Iraq. I think the Iraqi people will be better served under their current steps toward democracy. I think Muslims every where in the world will be better served after we stand up to extremists and defeat them. This is just my view, I understand there are those who do not share my view. If you or anyone supported the Iraqi war because of speeches that referenced bad intelligence, I get your gripe. I just don't think Bush lied, nor have I seen proof of that. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-29-2008, 02:27 PM	#45 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so your take on the bush rationales, such as they were, is as instrumentalized as those fine fellows from the project for a new american century, who are ultimately responsible for this debacle in iraq. they adopted the same line, but without the ridiculous claims that debacle in iraq will serve an edifying function for "muslims every where in the world" and instead were mostly interested in invading iraq as a way of rewinding the first gulf war and effectively telling the united nations to fuck itself, there's a new swaggering amurican sheriff in town blah blah blah--except of course, it's all gone to hell. but if that's the case, then you really don't care what the bush people said at all--and since the end justifies the means, the intelligence was "faulty" rather than knowingly manipulated to justify a decision to invade taken well in advance of any rationale....the end justifies the means. and of course you would draw no connection between the marketing of this phony case for a debacle and the "democracy" that this farce was supposed to export. and it seems the you prefer a fantasy scenario as to outcome to anything remotely like an assessment of the actually existing situation. "taking the long view" i think the bush people call that particular type of dissociation. which would explain why you have no cognizance, seemingly, of the consequences of this debacle for the interests of the united states. the end justify the means. and it's all just opinion, man, so anyone can frame in or out whatever information about the world they want. it's all arbitrary, so the actually existing farce can be referenced as a Giant Edifying Exercise for those benighted "muslims every where in the world." great. i'll catch you later, ace. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-30-2008, 06:58 AM	#49 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you should check them out, ace---i think for what it's worth alot about my reactions to your posts will become clearer to you if you know what they're about. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-30-2008, 07:12 AM	#50 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The PNAC (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Feith, Armitage, Perle) were the architects of the Bush policy on Iraq (and beyond) from his first day in office (actually well before..they tried to convince Clinton to undertake the same foly of inviading Iraq). To shrug them off as "some kind of neocon think tank" leaves a gaping hole in one's knowledge of recent foreign policy decision making. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the PNAC website has been taken down. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-30-2008, 07:53 AM	#52 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nonsense, ace. it is simply the case that you cannot understand the way in which the iraq debacle played out without knowing about pnac. you can't do it--at least not if you are actually interested in stuff that happens in the actually existing world. this is not the same as saying that you cannot have arrived at your views expect by way of the pnac--there are two different questions here. don't conflate them and then get all snippy because you cannot keep separate issues separate. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-30-2008, 08:27 AM	#54 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, ace, i'll leave that to your research skills. use them. it's not that hard. i've got some stuff to do outside. try it for yourself--searches are easy peasy. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-30-2008, 12:34 PM	#58 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace--i didn't know about the size queen dimension of your persona. live and learn. live and learn. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-30-2008, 01:32 PM	#60 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont know any of your personal flaws and attributes, ace. i just know what you posted two posts ago. all this by the bye. it hardly matters. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-30-2008, 02:02 PM	#61 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Getting back on track... Ace: You read up on the PNAC? I'm curious as to your impression.

06-02-2008, 07:27 AM	#65 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	So what do you have above that is not summed up in my post #63? Is it simply shocking to believe that people would want Saddam out of power, have a plan, and conditions under which the plan would be triggered? Why do you think I voted for Bush? I voted for him because I believed he had a plan to address Iraq. I felt Iraq was a problem, I thought it was an on-going threat that was going to get worse. After 9/11 there was no doubt in my mind that if we failed to act decisively against - not only al qaeda, but also the defiance of Saddam we would have faced a much bigger problem in the future. In that regard 9/11 and Iraq are linked. I am guessing the subtlety of that link is lost on most people who felt Bush falsely linked the two. How many times has the administration been asked about links between Iraq an 9/11? Is the real problem with the obsession with the question, which has cause a belief in the public, which is then blamed on the administration? Or is the problem with a person "cherry picking" quotes related to a broader ME strategy and relating it to 9/11 direct involvement? I know you will never acknowledge an understanding of how a person can see 9/11 as a legitimate occurrence prompting a need to immediately stop Saddam's defiance, but there are people who hold the view - like it or not. I think your real opinion is that of simply disagreeing with that strategic view. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-02-2008, 07:49 AM	#66 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ace, it wasn't our (read: the US) responsibility to decide whether or not to remove Saddam back in 1992 (or in 2003, for that matter). It was the UNs, but they decided it wasn't worth the risk. What risk? Read the news between 2003 and 2008. While the UN is far from perfect, they seem to be a lot better at the whole "geopolitics" and "war" thing than we are. They saw what many saw before 2003: removing Saddam Hussein would mean civil war that's unresolvable from an outside force.

06-02-2008, 10:40 AM	#71 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	nah.,...I'll pass,ace. I made my point and dont see the purpose of going round and round with you. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-02-2008, 10:42 AM	#72 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think it's important to draw a distinction between the Bush Administration/DoD and military leadership from the generals down. The former are responsible for setting goals, the latter for attaining them. Had clear goals been provided, I have little doubt that we'd be a lot closer to them if not there. Our military is surprisingly effective. And "restore peace" isn't a goal.

06-02-2008, 12:03 PM	#77 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The regime was gone literally overnight. That was a victory. Yay military. Leaving alone the fact we had no business removing the regime, it was done and it was done properly. The problem came immediately after that. The military basically said, "Okay, what now?" Then there were some garbled messages about WMDs and al Queady links... then it was about liberation, then democracy. Now it's about ending the civil war we caused.

06-02-2008, 03:46 PM	#79 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I can tell you haven't actually read Obama's position on Iraq and the Middle East. Whole lot more to it than just pulling troops out. I know the sound bytes you've heard, but that's NOT all he's said. "Let the occupation run its course", hunh? The term "run its course" comes from the world of medicine--we say that about fevers. When a fever runs its course, it's because the immune system has risen up and driven the invading virus out of the body. Seems an apt analogy...