War

[Cal]

The US has entered wars on many occasions. The reason for doing so has almost always ( and I say almost just because "always" is almost always not "always") been clear. Well, there is first time for everything, and the Bush administration seems to win the prize for "Snow Job of the Millenium"

We appear to have been sold a big fat bill of goods as to our reasons for invading Irak. Like many of the rest of us, I was hesitant to believe that that there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussain. Nevertheless I was willing to extend my trust in the establishment to get it right.

Not only did they get it WRONG, they didn't seem to care that in the process they deceived the american people.

I never have believed that we could march into IRAK and turn it into a democracy, but I was willing to believe that Saddam Hussain could have WMD's and connections to 911.

It has become clear as day that 1) there were no WMD's 2) Saddam had no significant ties to Alcada (sp) 3) Saddam posed NO imminent threat to the security of the US 4) that Clinton's policies and actions had INDEED reduced Saddam's power to mere chest pounding.

So why invade IRAK? The answer is NOW, also pretty clear. 1) get control of its oil 2) provide western businesses the opportunity to "rape" the country for its economic benefits ( and ,yes, behind the scene we are doing just that---the regulatory provisions of the new regime allow foreign companies to take any resourses they want OUT of IRAK, and have set up a process which disadvantages Iraki businesses in the process. (The French and Germans knew we were doing this, which is why they refused to support the who thing) 3) payback Saudi Arabia for supporting both "Bushes" 4) and, why does it matter, we were lied to about the real reasons anyway. 5) It is also fully clear that the Bush Administration intended to invade IRAK from the moment they got in the White house. 911 gave them the perfect excuse.

As a side comment, Irony of Ironies----It appears that all we have to do is stay in IRAK for a year or two more and we will have killed as many US soldiers as were people killed in the attack of 911. And we did it without touching a hair on the head of Bin Laden. Now THAT is what I call payback, Osama!

So, what was imminent about the threat of Saddam to the US? Obviously, now, nothing. OH, but he was so bad to his people. We had to FREE all those poor people. Where is all this sympathy for the millions starving and dying of AIDs in africa. What MASSIVE resourses have we put in there? HYPOCRICY I say.

So, should Bush be held responsible, is perhaps the essential question:

If he didn't know that Saddam posed no imminent threat, he SHOULD have. It was his JOB to know, and he was INCOMPETENT TO LEAD OR..........

If he DID know that Saddam was no threat, then he perpetuated the most heinous lie possible: He lied to the american people and knowingly led us into a conflict on false pretences, for which he should be impeached immediately.

[Dravin]

It was his JOB to know

Actually it's the job of the CIA to know and to inform him.

Impeachment at this point isn't likely to happen, so the next best thing is to vote to ensure he isn't in office next term.

[john doe]

Maybe you should ask your friend Kary what his pal John Kerry would have done. Oh, yeah, John Kerry supported the removal of Saddam. And then he didn't. And then he did. And then he didn't. And then he did, but he says he would have done it surgically, like Bill Clinton when he went after Osama bin Laden. Now that operation worked wonderfully. Or maybe he wouldn't have, no one knows because he keeps changing his mind on what he would have done. Or does he really have a mind of his own? At least his psycho wife can make a decision, however wrong, and stick with it.

[Snow]

Cal,

Your a bit long on pontificating and innuendo and a bit short of facts and reasonable conclusion.

First - I am no fan of the Iraq war (if your IRAK was a play on words I missed it). I am no fan of George Bush, other than I am a proponent of less government and he is a Republican - or sorts anyway.

I just don't buy the whole 'we were lied to' lamment. I don't feel lied to. I fully understood from the beginning that they MAY be WMDs, not that there WERE. I fully understood from the beginning that Saddam posed a threat, not directly to the US in the short run, but a derived threat that was part of a bigger picture that posed a threat to democracy and freedom and general peace. I read the newspapers just like everybody else did and watched the same news. Why do I, and did I understand it that way when others say it was so clear that it was all about al queda and WMDs. I never thought Bin Laden was more than peripharily involved. Aren't others as capable as I as sorting through the chaff?

I always believed that it was an issue that Saddam had thumbed his nose at the legal sanctions imposed by the UN, repeatedly and consistently and was a mass murderer of horrific porportion guilty of terror and genocide that it was high time he paid the price for his evil - while the world turned a blind eye to his killing fields, the U.S. had the courage to act.

Beyond that could I see please something other than political innuendo that it was all about the oil and all about paying back and all about plan A from the minute Bush took office?

[Matt]

Putting to one side my opinion of the Iraq war, the French and the Germans did not want the war as both countries had some really heavy (and probably illegal) deals going with Sadam.

Their motives were impure. And where, exactly, did this "cozy up to Sadam" routine get the French? French journalists were kidnapped in order to try to force France to retract a ban on religious artifacts in schools.

So, gee, that plan sure worked well, didn't it??

[Cal]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 19 2004, 09:34 AM

It was his JOB to know

Actually it's the job of the CIA to know and to inform him.

Impeachment at this point isn't likely to happen, so the next best thing is to vote to ensure he isn't in office next term.

True, however, it IS his job to evaluate ALL the intelligence available. If the picture isn't clear or there is doubt about the quality of the intelligence, the correct and honest path is to WAIT until there is clear and reliable intelligence. It is now clear from many sources that Bush CHOSE to ignore clear indications, even from the CIA, that there was serious doubt about the presence of WMD's. Even the people (inspectors) right there on the ground INSIDE IRAK ITSELF expressed serious doubt about the presence of WMD's. Bush had plenty of reason to doubt the Saddam presented any imminent danger.

However, I DO agree with your bottom line. Vote him out. No one in Washington has the cajones to impeach him. It seems we only impeach presidents for minor personal indiscretions, not leading the whole country into an illconceived war.

[Cal]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 19 2004, 11:01 AM

Maybe you should ask your friend Kary what his pal John Kerry would have done. Oh, yeah, John Kerry supported the removal of Saddam. And then he didn't. And then he did. And then he didn't. And then he did, but he says he would have done it surgically, like Bill Clinton when he went after Osama bin Laden. Now that operation worked wonderfully. Or maybe he wouldn't have, no one knows because he keeps changing his mind on what he would have done. Or does he really have a mind of his own? At least his psycho wife can make a decision, however wrong, and stick with it.

Neither Karey, nor anyone else outside of Bush's little inner circle had any way of knowing what the CIA and other intelligence was. How can you blame Karey for being in the same position the rest of us were. We had no real choice but to trust the national security counsel and their other insiders.

Of course Karey vassilated. Just like anyone else would have. We didn't have the information at the time to make any hard decision. What we DO know now is that BUSH and his cronies INTENTIONALLY misled us as to the reasons for this debacle call the IRAK war. And for that THEY HAVE TO GO.

Karey is not my #1 choice for president, but BUSH has managed to make himself my # 260.000.000th. (That is, the last damn person in america)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 19 2004, 04:04 PM

Cal,

Your a bit long on pontificating and innuendo and a bit short of facts and reasonable conclusion.

First - I am no fan of the Iraq war (if your IRAK was a play on words I missed it). I am no fan of George Bush, other than I am a proponent of less government and he is a Republican - or sorts anyway.

I just don't buy the whole 'we were lied to' lamment. I don't feel lied to. I fully understood from the beginning that they MAY be WMDs, not that there WERE. I fully understood from the beginning that Saddam posed a threat, not directly to the US in the short run, but a derived threat that was part of a bigger picture that posed a threat to democracy and freedom and general peace. I read the newspapers just like everybody else did and watched the same news. Why do I, and did I understand it that way when others say it was so clear that it was all about al queda and WMDs. I never thought Bin Laden was more than peripharily involved. Aren't others as capable as I as sorting through the chaff?

I always believed that it was an issue that Saddam had thumbed his nose at the legal sanctions imposed by the UN, repeatedly and consistently and was a mass murderer of horrific porportion guilty of terror and genocide that it was high time he paid the price for his evil - while the world turned a blind eye to his killing fields, the U.S. had the courage to act.

Beyond that could I see please something other than political innuendo that it was all about the oil and all about paying back and all about plan A from the minute Bush took office?

Snow, do a little more reading on the subject. I recommend Paul Oneill's book. Then read Bob Woodwords book. If that isn't enough, try Richard Clarkes,"Against All enemies", and if that doesn't give you enough to chew on, try former white house counsel John Dean's analysis. Don't take any one point of view, just digest the whole thing, then get back to me.

By the way, if it's NOT about terrorism, nor Saddam Hussain's "imminent" threat what do you think it is about? Is it about compassion for the poor Iraqi people. If so, when why are we practically ignoring millions of other people in the same or worse circumstances. Secondly, it is not speculation that Halliburton and other american contractors have been given a windfall of contracts in rebuilding Iraqi oil recovery and refining operations. And it is no secret that many other large business interests are exploiting the Iraqi economy in other ways.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Matt@Sep 19 2004, 04:50 PM

Putting to one side my opinion of the Iraq war, the French and the Germans did not want the war as both countries had some really heavy (and probably illegal) deals going with Sadam.

Their motives were impure. And where, exactly, did this "cozy up to Sadam" routine get the French? French journalists were kidnapped in order to try to force France to retract a ban on religious artifacts in schools.

So, gee, that plan sure worked well, didn't it??

Of course they did, and they knew that if we were successful in overthrowing Saddam they were SURE to loose these advantages. They also knew that Saddam posed NO threat to us at present and there was no good reason to invade. But, Bush took advantage of 911 to "con" the american people into believing there WAS a threat.

[Faerie]

a: it's IRAQ not IRAK

b: it's KERRY not KAREY

So...Kerry had NO access to "intelligence" when he was on the intelligence committee?

[john doe]

So...Kerry had NO access to "intelligence" when he was on the intelligence committee?

Apparently not.... he chose not to attend many of those intelligence briefings. The information given during those meetings must have been irrelevant to him, he could always get his opinion by licking his finger and seeing which way the wind blows.

[Dravin]

If the picture isn't clear or there is doubt about the quality of the intelligence, the correct and honest path is to WAIT until there is clear and reliable intelligence.

I'd like to point out that it would be up to the CIA as to inform him as to the reliably of the intelligence, if the CIA says X peice of intelligence is rock solid he's gotta go with that. However it is up to him to decide wither there is enough intelligence of high enough quality (as informed by the CIA and other intelligence staff) for it to be actionable.

It seems we only impeach presidents for minor personal indiscretions, not leading the whole country into an illconceived war.

Actually Clinton was impeached for perjury (not something I consider a minor personal indiscretion), which is pretty cut and dried as far as things go. Now wither he should have had to testify on his affair in the first place is an entirely different matter.

BTW, I have to point out that random capitalization of words* and such things as spelling Iraq as Irak doesn't help your position, while immaterial to the point it makes you come off as a kook, with the end result of people not even bothering to listen to your position in the first place.

* Italics would suit you better when needed for emphasis as opposed to caps which are the internet version of shouting, reread your posts but shout the all caps words and you'll see what I'm getting at.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 19 2004, 06:11 PM

Snow, do a little more reading on the subject. I recommend Paul Oneill's book. Then read Bob Woodwords book. If that isn't enough, try Richard Clarkes,"Against All enemies", and if that doesn't give you enough to chew on, try former white house counsel John Dean's analysis. Don't take any one point of view, just digest the whole thing, then get back to me.

I don't know what to make of you today Cal. You imply that I am not well read while you are well read, but you're not very convincing... it's "al queda" not "alcada;" it's "Iraq" not "IRAK;" it's "Kerry; not "Karey;" it's "Paul O'neil" not "Paul Oneill;" it's "Bob Woodward"not "Bob Woodword;" it's "Hussein" not "Hussain;" etc, etc, etc.

You being wrong about how to spell everything you are talking about doesn't make your opinion wrong but it makes me think that you obviously haven't read much about what you are telling me I ought to read. Besides which, how do you think reading all those things is going to change my mind about what I thought prior to going to war with Iraq? I reported to you what I understood way back then and reading something now can't change what I thought then. Time only flows in one direction; remember?

And again, you pontificating is still short on facts - you can't be convincing if your argument is "I know stuff and if your knew what I knew, you would know stuff too."

[Outshined]

You knew I'd weigh in here somewhere, didn't you? I've fought in Iraq twice now, in '91 and last year in the invasion. I have no doubt that it was the right thing to do.

For starters, let's look at the intelligence Bush was going on for the war. The CIA put out a full report on Iraq in October 2002. You can read it for yourself Here. It's a very clear picture, and paints Iraq as a serious threat, which it was. The CIA showed no doubt that WMD were there. The big secret: I believe they were correct. My own unit had to purify water sources contaminated with blister agent, and we had 30 men go down with chemical symptoms after moving empty barrels that later tested positive for VX nerve. Saddam had several months to hide his stock or get it out of the country, and I believe he did. Would have been relatively easy with a truck here and there.

I keep hearing this accusation that we did it for oil. Why have prices not plumetted? Where is the oil we are bringing back? Why did we fix a provision for the Iraqis to profit form their oil production? What else is there to "rape" from Iraq, and where is the evidence that we are doing so? It's a false accusation.

Did the Iraqi people need to be freed? Absolutely. I heard firsthand from the people themselves about the mutilation, torture, rape squads, prisons for children (where they took your children when you spoke out against the government).

I saw the autopsy tables and hooks in the ceiling in Uday's basement. I heard how there was no health care, that if a woman had complications during childbirth "she died at home". I asked a man in Baghdad if it was really that bad, and he told me if I wanted to understand I should "get together everyone who has had an ear cut off by the government".

I was first convinced beyond doubt that we were right to be there when we rolled into Baghdad and the streets were lined with thousands of people, screaming, crying, cheering, and kissing US flags.

We were right to invade, and it was justified. Bush did not lie about it.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 19 2004, 07:11 PM

it is not speculation that Halliburton and other american contractors have been given a windfall of contracts in rebuilding Iraqi oil recovery and refining operations. And it is no secret that many other large business interests are exploiting the Iraqi economy in other ways.

Halliburton and co are the only ones in the world who specialize in this kind of rebuilding or are capable of it, especially as quickly as they do it. You have another company in mind, perhaps?

And I've seen the blaket accusation several times about how it's "no secret" that "many other large business interests" are "exploiting the Iraqi economy in other ways". Evidence and sources for this accusation, please. Too many people make these kind of accusations with no proof, like the accusation that we went to war for oil or for revenge.

None of these people have been there...

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 19 2004, 11:43 PM

it's "al queda" not "alcada;"

Actually, it's 'al Qaeda', or 'al-Qaida'... not that they deserve to have their name spelled correctly!

[Faerie]

well if BUSH lied, then Clinton lied...

ya know, to top that off: kerry lied, hillary lied, ted kennedy lied, etc, etc, etc...

This whole ordeal wasn't unique to Bush Jr. It's not like he came into office and said "Hey guys, get THIS!!" This has been going on for 20+ years and there are tons and tons of quotes from the Clintons and crew where THEY felt that Iraq was an immediate threat, that Iraq had WMD's, that Iraq was tied to Al-Qaeda, etc, etc, etc...so were THEY lying in the 90's??

*edited to say*

I'd take first hand eye witness information like what Outshined wrote over any conspiracy theories any day...

[helgaboy]

I am glad to see there are some other rational thinkers who agree this war was a tereble idea. It wouldn't have mattered what intellegence had or had not uncovered as Bush was just unstoppable when it came to war in Iraq regaurdless of what his advisors told him. Even if you give him that Iraq would have happened sooner or later he has turned it into a three ring circus. He may say it is not his fault things have gone "awry" but he is the commander in chief and he needs to be held responsable. We also need someone who has some sort of plan to get out of Iraq and I have NO faith Bush has any clue what he is doing his enterance strategy is proof of that!

[Outshined]

I am a rational thinker, I have the benefit of having served in Iraq twice so far, and believe we were right to go in.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

Is someone else using your username?

Nothing personal; it's just that I remember your previous posts being a little more nuanced. And literate.

It seems we only impeach presidents for minor personal indiscretions, not leading the whole country into an illconceived war.

The Cal I knew was a lawyer. I doubt a good lawyer would dismiss perjury so lightly as a "personal indiscretion." Impeachment may have been a heavy hammer, but the nature of the Presidency means that the other available sanctions (like a couple of nights in jail) aren't available. It's either impeachment, or the President is effectively above the law.

My personal view was that after 9/11, any country that sponsored any international terrorism was fair game. State-sponsored terrorism should have been considered an act of war from the beginning; after 9/11, some people came around to that view. Saddam had Ansar al-Islam, the Zarqawi faction, Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas under his wing, not to mention his financial support for Palestinian suicide bombers. I would have been happier if we'd knocked off Iran or Syria first, but Iraq was dumb enough to offer us the legal basis for using force by violating the 1991 armistice.

[Snow]

Originally posted by shanstress70+Sep 20 2004, 05:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Sep 20 2004, 05:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Sep 19 2004, 11:43 PM

it's "al queda" not "alcada;"

Actually, it's 'al Qaeda', or 'al-Qaida'... not that they deserve to have their name spelled correctly!

yes of course - sorry.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 20 2004, 06:43 PM

The Cal I knew was a lawyer.

School teacher as I recall - science and physics.

[Kay]

At least his psycho wife can make a decision...

Whose wife?

Careful with the answer: He's watching.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Faerie@Sep 19 2004, 07:06 PM

a: it's IRAQ not IRAK

b: it's KERRY not KAREY

So...Kerry had NO access to "intelligence" when he was on the intelligence committee?

Not the kind Bush had---daily briefing on CIA and state dept information. Sorry about the spelling---must be more careful.

[Cal]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 19 2004, 07:40 PM

So...Kerry had NO access to "intelligence" when he was on the intelligence committee?

Apparently not.... he chose not to attend many of those intelligence briefings. The information given during those meetings must have been irrelevant to him, he could always get his opinion by licking his finger and seeing which way the wind blows.

For all the good it did him, Bush might have just as well done the same thing, judging by the stupid decisions he made.