Mephisto2

Well, in the light of what we now know, I don't think this should come as a surprise to anyone. Indeed, it's not much different from the Interim Report released last September.

Mr Mephisto

Willravel

So. There was no connection between 9/11 and the al-Qaeda (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...232311,00.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...sp?story=94438). There was no connection bewteen the al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html). There were no WMDs in Iraq (see above).

Sounds like it IS the right war!

flamingdog

Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but I don't see how you leap from those articles to the statement that al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11.

Willravel

The 9/11 Comission, the official invesigation of 9/11, ruled that those people died on the planes. If that information is faulty, the other evidence (which was never realeased) may be faulty as well.

Remember Panama? The givernment investigation ruled that 45 people died. An Oscar-winning documentary later revealed a death toll of 4,000.

I guess I have trust issues with the government, but this (the article above) is a good example of how it is not irrational not to trust the government's word.

filtherton

Is anyone surprised?

MacGuyver

Go figure. I think now's a good time to stop sodomizing the middle east and worry about what's going on at the home front.

__________________
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.
---Aristotle

Deeds, not words, shall speak [for] me.
---John Fletcher

Coppertop

No surprise here. Can't wait to see how they try to spin it now. Or if they'll even bother.

filtherton

I bet they're in iran.

Coppertop

Willravel

A study in comparison:
Gulf of Tonkin (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tonkin-g.htm) and the truth brought fourth later (http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html).
vs.
The CIA report on WMDs in iraq (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...q_Oct_2002.htm) and the truth in the article above.

splck

I'm not.
I'm sure the supporters of this invasion will sweep this under the rug and pull out "we're freeing them" or "we're protecting our freedom".

__________________
nice line eh?

tecoyah

Remember guys....this is now a war of liberation. We don't do WMD's anymore, We do Freedom from Tyranny.

Geez....get with the program.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

filtherton

At the going rate, i think it is only a matter of time before we "liberate" as many people from this mortal coil as did saddam.

Willravel

Remember when the War with Iraq was based on the young lady, later learned to be employed by the Hill & Knowlton ad agency, who came to Washington to tell the world that babies were being ripped from their incubators by Iraqi soldiers in a campaign to convince Americans that we should start bombing Iraq? That now-disproved bit of theater happened almost 15 years ago, yet we have not stopped bombing Iraq ever since. I wonder what reason we will be fed after the liberation bs is seen through.

Willravel

If only there was a ring we could throw in a volcano to get rid of Bush. That might finally end his war.

roachboy

why should anyone be surprised at this?
it was obvious from before the war started.
it was obvious the whole of the intervening period.
it is obvious now.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

Coppertop, that's freaking swell.

martinguerre

just another brick in the wall...

i wish i could say i was in the least bit surprised.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Willravel

OKAY! So no one is surprised. What does this mean? This means the War on Terror, the reason we invaded Iraq, had no connection to Iraq. Have we freed them from tyrany? Ask the nice people of Fallujah. I'll bet they're stoked that America is here to save them from the murders of innocent people.

WHY IS IT STILL GOING!? There isn't anything to support that's going on over there. Now that we've admited there are no WMDs, that means we are out of reasons for being there. What will happen now? America will read it's newspapers, say "tsk tsk, what a shame" then finish it's collective coffees and go to work not to think about it again. American apathy is responsible for the 10,000 Iraqi civilians deaths. Just as American apathy is responsible for the 4,000 people in Panama. Just as American apathy will be the deaths of future peoples in future wars that we have no moral reason for starting.

Apathy is worse than evil.

roachboy

first off, here is another article on the same topic as mr mephisto posted--couldnt find the exact headline, but there we are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

adding to willravel's point, here is a long book review--by andrew sullivan of all people--about two new books that just came out documenting extensive abuse of prisoners by the americans in iraq. if these charges are true, bush really should be impeached.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/bo...rtner=homepage

i'd have copied it, but its 6 pages long. i don tknow if there is a limit on quotation lengths, but i figured 6 pages would be over it. a subscription to the nytimes website is free.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

The word "officially" is......fully noted.
No word on the "unofficial" search.

roachboy

excerpted from here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...729479,00.html

it's over.
there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq.
there were none before bushwar started.
hang your hat where you like, powerclown, but the facts remain as they are and have been.
there was, in fact no justification for the invasion.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ananas

So, now it's time to bring the boys (and girls) home.

I'd like to know what the loved ones of the ones already lost saying about this news?

powerclown

Assuming this is all on the up and up, and no WMD tied to the Hussein regime are ever again found - or are being looked for away from the eye of the media - what is the point of saying, in effect, that justification for this war is 'officially' faulty?

"Oops, we gave you the lobotomy McMurphy, but you really didn't need it after all? Sorry 'bout that..."

Why announce this after 2 years of bloody warfare, after thousands from both sides have died? Why say this just as the wheels of progress are beginning to turn? Why does this need to be hammered home now, 3 weeks before elections, and in light of the massive reconstruction effort in the country?? So, Iraq will now possibly go ahead and be rebuilt, but only in spite of the reasons for rebuilding it? Maybe nothing positive deserves to happen in Iraq, the way this has been handled by the media, with it's Abu Ghraib's and it's killings of unarmed 'insurgents' in warzones.

So now, what does this all mean then? Isn't it a moot irrelevance at this point? We've swam halfway across the Atlantic Ocean in snorkeling gear, now we just turn around and swim back, having accomplished nothing?

Live by the media, die by the media...

Willravel

The "wheels of progress" are killing American soldiers and Iraqi freedom fighters and civilians. There is nothing wrong with admitting to a mistake. It is better to admit to a mistake then continue it. If we were honest for once with the Iraqi people, they might be more likely to vote. They might see that a democracy could help them, not turn them into satan.

BTW our massive reconstruction is helping some people make a lot of money. 3 guesses as to who those people are. The money we're giving to Iraq, that $200 billion, is not going to the people of Iraq.

matthew330

"Is anyone surprised?"

Does anyone care? This is the same old argument. There were no definitive answers before any of this started.... Links to al quida/WMD/etc etc. That's why we went to war. 10 years of sanctions and inspections couldn't produce any answers, now, thanks to Mr. Bush you have the answer to one. But ya know what....thanks to 10 years of liberal pussyfooting, as much as this was meant to be a joke

"I bet they're in iran. "

it certainly is possible. As long as you keep living in your world, we'll keep winning elections, and hey...no harm done. I'm comfortable with that.

roachboy

when in trouble over a problem that has persisted for a long time, act jaded.
conservatives have a packaged response for everything, it seems.
somehow they are turning the confirmation of what everyone who thought about it knew the whole time about this misbgotten war into a reason to be smug.
just amazing.
they are the richard bey show of political discourse.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Does anyone care? Do you care that we lost 3000 people on 9/11? Well we have to be patriotic, so we do care. Do you care about the estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed? What's the difference?! Who are you or I to say one life is worth more than another? Is it okay to trade 10,000 civilian lives for an answer to a question that everyone in the world but us already knew? Did you already forget that the US gave Saddam the thumbs up for the invasion of Kuwait, then we went there and bombed the crap out of him for it?

powerclown

Honest about what, exactly?
Seriously, so what?
Companies are supplying services, they deserve to get paid, no?
What's more important: A few companies getting paid, or a country being rebuilt?
(Note that these companies also provide jobs and benefits to many, many familes, which in turn helps drive the economy, etc.)
No disrepect, but how on earth do you know what the Iraqi people are or aren't receiving?

Bodyhammer86

Oh really? Do you have a source for this?

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

Mephisto2

What's the point? Well, justifying people's opposition to it. Petty minded politics. Truth. There's lots of reasons.

I think I understand where you're coming from powerclown, and I actually agree with you. We can all argue about whether the invasion was right or wrong; well, it was obviously wrong. But the US (and Poland!) are there now, so it's time to get the job done as quickly and smoothly as possible. It's almost like "No point in crying over spilt milk".

The problem with Iraq is that it's turning out to be a real quagmire. When anyone warned about the lack of any strategy or compared it to Vietnam, they were ridiculed by the right-wing media and Bush supporters. I don't think anyone would laugh at that comparision again.

Do I think the US will be defeated in Iraq as it was in Vietnam? No. But I do think it will be forced to withdraw, leaving a ramshackle, besieged puppet regime tottering on the brink of collapse and descent into bloody civil war. To quote another proverb, "Better the Devil you know". Perhaps it would have been better with Hussein left in power, kept in check like a cages animal. Because, if the election is successful (or even semi-successful), you're almost guaranteed to see the Shi'te majority elect a religious government. And surely America can't object to the exercise of freedom, and democracy and self-determination, can it.

Can it?...


It's a real difficult situation powerclown. And I feel for you having to support the Bush position, as any good man should support his leader. I'll finish with another quip. "You're damned if you do and damned if you don't."

So there's not much America can do but soldier on (excuse the pun), and try to get the hell out of there as soon as possible. No point in hanging around and dealing with your own mess, as it's going to be next to impossible to clean up properly. Hopefully this will discredit the chickenhawks in the Bush camp and dissuade any ridiculous plans or strategy with regards to military action in Syria, Iran or North Korea.

Funny how we don't hear much about the "axis of evil" anymore. I suspect they wish that speech had never been written...


Mr Mephisto

Willravel

OMG are you serious? Hahaha. Maybe if we were honest about why we are there. "We are here to liberate you! Love us! We got rid of Saddam, who murdered lots of your people!" We are not there to 'liberate' them. We are there because we could not buy Saddam like we bought the Saudi royal family. We liberated 100,000 civilians from their lives (http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/toll.html). Those people don't need to worry about elections or jobs. They don't need to worry about propoganda or freedom fighting. They are dead. You, personally (among many others) are responsible for their deaths, as you support the actions of the empire that murdered them.

Name one Iraqi company who is reconstructing Iraq. The companies that are there are all available from the IIRTF. You find the source yourself.

I know what's being recieved because some of my friends in Iraq actually survived.

As for the thumbs up from the US for Kuwaity invasion, this requires a more detailed response.

In 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski proposed to Saddam Hussein that he invade Iran and annex Khuzistan, thereby providing Iraq access to the Gulf through the narrow waterway, Shatt-al Arab. The U.S. hoped to use Iraq to counter the radicalism of the Khomeini regime in Iran from spreading to oppressed peoples of the Emirates and to Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein was guaranteed financial backing in the form of loans from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other nations.

About half a million Iranians and Iraqis were killed in the Iran Iraq war, and unbeknownst to Hussein, the U.S. and Israel also secretly armed the Iranians so as to weaken both Iran and Iraq. President Ronald Reagan's special envoy, Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein once in late December 1983 and again in March 1984. These visits paved the way for the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Iraq at a time when Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons in his war against Iran. Iraq had been removed from the U.S. State Department's list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982, and Iraq went on a buying spree to purchase weapons from U.S. and German companies. These weapons were used in 1988 for attacks against the Kurds.(http://commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm and the Democracy Now! piece at: http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/de...n20021114.html)

The war with Iran left Iraq in ruins. When Saddam Hussein launched his eight year war against Iran, Iraq had $40 billion in hard currency reserves. But by the end of the war, his nation was $80 billion in debt. Iraq was pressed to repay the $80 billion to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with interest. While Iraq was distracted by its war, Kuwait had accumulated 900 square miles of Iraqi territory by advancing its border with Iraq northward. This was presented to Iraq as a fait accompli and it gave Kuwait access to the Rumaila oil field. The Kuwaiti Sheik had purchased the Santa Fe Drilling Corporation of Alhambra, California, for $2.3 billion and proceeded to use its slant drilling equipment to gain access to the Iraqi oil field.

The main source of earnings for Iraq was petroleum whose price fluctuated depending on international production levels. By 1990, Kuwait, under U.S. tutelage had increased its oil production to undermine OPEC quotas thereby driving the price of Iraqi oil down from $28 per barrel to $11 per barrel and further ruining the Iraqi economy. Appeals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other countries to the Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to stick to OPEC production levels were met with increased naval activity in the Persian Gulf by the United States. In February 1990, Saddam Hussein spoke at the Amman summit on the relationship between oil production and the U.S. navy buildup and warned that the Gulf people and the rest of the Arabs faced subordination to American interests.

Following this speech the Western press carried stories of Saddam's missiles, chemical weapons and nuclear potential. The Israeli press speculated about pre-emptive strikes such as the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear power plant in 1981. In spite of Iraqi diplomatic appeals, Kuwait and the Emirates increased oil production, harming their own economic interests, but damaging Iraq's even more so. Kuwait refused to relinquish Iraqi territory it had acquired during the Iran Iraq war which Kuwait had helped finance. Kuwait also rejected production quotas and rejected appeals to cease pumping oil from Iraq's Rumaila oil reserve. It refused to forgo any of Iraq's debt.

On September 18, 1990, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry published verbatim the transcripts of meetings between Saddam Hussein and high level U.S. officials. Knight-Ridder columnist James McCartney acknowledged that the transcripts were not disputed by the U.S. State Department. U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie informed Hussein that, "We have no opinion on...conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She reiterated this position several times, and added, "Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction." A week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Baker's spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly both stated publicly that "the United States was not obligated to come to Kuwait's aid if it were attacked." (Santa Barbara News-Press September 24, 1990).

Two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that the United States has no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country." The New York Daily News editorialized on September 29, 1990, "Small wonder Saddam concluded he could overrun Kuwait. Bush and Co. gave him no reason to believe otherwise."

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait and quickly gained control of the country. The United States, along with the United Nations, demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces. Attempts by Iraq to negotiate withdrawal were rebuffed by the United States. U.S. military forces in the region had already rehearsed battle plans to repel an Iraqi invasion.

We all know what happened next. On January 16, 1991, U.S. and other allied forces launched a devastating attack of Iraq and its armed forces in Kuwait. The Allied bombing was intended to damage Iraq's infrastructure so as to hinder its ability to prosecute war by lowering both civilian and military morale.

I hope that cleared it up.

OFKU0

Somewhere in the world Hans Blix has a smile on his face resembling a Chelshire cat and is negotiating a book deal.

Somewhere in the world Saddam Hussein is looking at a no contest plea and maybe filing a civil suit against the U.S for billions.

Somewhere in the world is George Bush, steep in denial, thinking he is King of the world as his castles all crumble around him.

The bright side is that he has a year and a half to go before he is officially a lame duck president.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

almostaugust

I just did a search of the tfp politics thread about WMDs in Iraq. I looked at all our old discussions about this topic. So many Bush supporters were sure there were WMDs in Iraq. Now that the search is over, my question is, are Bush supporters at all angry about the information they were led to believe? How exactly do you feel?

__________________
'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe
Maybe this year will be better than the last
I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself
To hold on to these moments as they pass'

Willravel

This is going in my top 10 posts list. Very well thought out and written.

Manx

Do you have so much faith in the U.S. gov't, in regards to competence and integrity, that you feel the need to consistently argue against the freedom of the press?

Abu Ghraib is not the fault of the press. Killing of unarmed people in Iraq by the U.S. is not the fault of the press.

Most certainly not. The relevance is that the people that promoted the war based on the WMD aspect (and that would be everyone who promoted the war) are officially incorrect. This is knowledge that should (but won't) be used in future decision making. For example, the neo-con's in the White House should no longer be trusted to make good judgements. You should not trust them, I certainly do not trust them. This is the relevancy of this information. The relevancy of this information has little or nothing to do with whether the U.S. should cut and run, it is strictly related to adding information to yours and my stock which can be used to judge the people who have been providing us with "information" and making decisions for 3+ years.

tellumFS

If Bush were a Democrat he'd be roasted by now. It's time that someone in the House of Representatives grows some cajones and starts impeachment proceedings against him.

Does it sound like sour grapes? Yep. But to qoute a bumper sticker I saw "No one died when Clinton lied." Someone's gotta hold leaders accountable. It's just not right that they can bald face lie to the public. Besides, a new leader might be able to get more done in Iraq.

Willravel

If Bush is impeached, so also will be a slew of others including Cheny and Rice. I wonder how far down the chain we'll have to go for the nex president if they're impeached.

Is it safe for me to move the 9/11 stuff over from paranoia yet? No? Okay, I'll keep waiting.

pan6467

Ironic isn't it that the very right winged, pro-capitalist Bush fans will claim we are in Iraq for liberation and spending billions to help them better themselves, while here in the US they want to cut and get rid of every social program, believing "people should help themselves" and "it is promoting laziness to give financial help, instead people should work harder and take what is given, even if it is subpar wages."

The irony of the right is surpassed only by their hypocracies.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mephisto2

I don't believe in impeachment against Bush.

By most accounts, he believed what he was told by the likes of Tenet and Rumsfeld. Maybe he wanted to believe, but that's a different matter.

To bring your nation into a illegal, disreputable, and dangerous war is a poor decision. Not an impeachable one, but simply one of bad judgement. I won't even accuse Bush of poor leadership (as many have), because I don't believe he's a poor leader. In fact, I think he's generally a good leader.

But I think he's a bad President. He would have made a good cabinet member.

Mr Mephisto