NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Between doing whats best for America, and destroying America there are many other motives.

Bush does whats best for him, his cronies, and his controlers.

It is because of Bush's policies that more terroist attacks within our borders have been prevented; therefore, he must be doing something right. I am not a big fan of Bush; but I do believe that he is acting in our best interests; that he loves America; and I appreciate his convictions in this global fight against Islamo-fascism (terrorism).

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Keep the discussion on topic, and don't try to evaluate people.

The reason I'm attempting to "evaulate" you is simply because I need to know if you're a person of reason who can objectively look at facts or listen to others presenting facts and cogent arguments and at the very least have an open mind to understand why others don't agree with you.

It seems, however, that you're so dogmatically entrenched in your beliefs that you refuse to even consider reasonable explanations; choosing instead to not trust any source of information (government or otherwise)that counters your positions. You do, however, trust the government (or any source) as long as you can interpret information from those sources to be in line with your dogmatic views. Debating this issue with you is no more fruitful than debating with a block wall.

Debating this issue with you is no more fruitful than debating with a block wall.

And are you any less a block wall?

If your intent is to change peoples minds you will be disappointed with any debate.

Do it for all the others watching, and do it to vent your own feelings, not because you think you can change the world.

Alright, this petty bickering ends now. No further verbal warnings will be given.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

It is because of Bush's policies that more terroist attacks within our borders have been prevented; therefore, he must be doing something right.

That's the "elephant repellant" argument.

I could burn incense and chant in my house, claim that it was an effective elephant repellant and offer as proof the fact that there aren't any elephants in my house.

The fact that there have been no further terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 no more proves that Bush's policies have been effective than the fact that there was one on 9/11 proves that they were not. Things sometimes happen, and sometimes don't. Sometimes they happen, or don't, because of something someone else has done or not done, and sometimes they happen or don't happen in spite of something someone has done or not done.

There's no demonstrable cause and effect here. While it's certainly possible that the Bush administration's policies have prevented terrorist attacks on US soil, it's also possible that there have been, since 9/11, no terrorist attacks to be prevented. After all, the Bush administration's policies were axiomatically not in place before he assumed office, but still it was eight years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11. Would you argue that his policies prevented terrorist attacks in those eight years as well?


Now-- let's see if we can get this back on topic:

There's little question that Saddam Hussein at one time had WMDs. We know this to be true because we know who sold them to him. Hell, when Iraq was warring against Iran, and Iran was the cause du jour in the Middle East, the US sold him literally tons of weaponry.

We also know that Wolfowitz and the neocons had already detailed their plan to invade Iraq LONG before Bush was even nominated. It was something they already wanted to do, and they were only waiting for an opportunity.

Bush did, repeatedly, juxtapose Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in a transparent attempt to lead people to believe that Hussein bore some measure of responsibility for it while maintaining plausible deniability-- since he never actually came out and said it, he could later (as he did) technically claim that he had never made that assertion. However, that connection was implied often and deliberately, and to this day MANY Americans, despite the evidence to the contrary, continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack.

At the time of the invasion, it was apparent to many that Saddam Hussein no longer had the WMDs he certainly did once have. There's little doubt that he spirited them out of the country. However, that was NOT the assertion that Bush made in the run up to the war. Instead he cherrypicked intelligence, often using sources and information that the intelligence community itself believed were not credible, in order to promote the idea that Hussein still had WMDs.

Many among not only the intelligence community, but among the government, and even among the citizenry, had sincere doubts about the intelligence that Bush presented. However, he pushed it anyway, largely because an invasion of Iraq was, in and of itself, a fundamental goal of his handlers.

Certainly, many members of Congress had ample reason to doubt the intelligence, but they chose not to publicly do so at the time, certainly because it was politically expedient for them to go along. They didn't vote their consciences, but voted instead based on the perceived rewards or consequences of their votes.

ONLY NOW, when more people are becoming more disenchanted with the entire war, do these congresspeople come forward, wailing and gnashing their teeth at the way in which they were "duped" by "faulty intelligence." Their righteous indignation rings false. Either they're enormously stupid, or they overlooked their doubts then for political expediency, and are voicing their doubts NOW, also for political expediency.

There were many, many reasons why those who wanted an invasion of Iraq did, and possible WMDs is certainly far down on the list. Many of those reasons have not been divulged, and many WILL not be divulged. Many of them are, to anyone outside of the halls of power, reprehensible. That's not necessarily meant as a slur against this administration-- it's simply the way things are done by all those who seek to hold and wield power.

This entire controversy-- both the initial presentation of the faulty intelligence and the current reaction to it, is a non-issue, designed and successfully implemented to guide public discourse away from the more tawdry truths, and to keep us divided against each other and therefore powerless.

True control rests not only in presenting one's supporters with propaganda with which they might express their support, but presenting one's opponents with propaganda with which they might express their opposition.


And from on high comes the sound of silver against china, glasses clinking together as new toasts are made, and quiet, self-satisfied laughter...

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
That's the "elephant repellant" argument.

I could burn incense and chant in my house, claim that it was an effective elephant repellant and offer as proof the fact that there aren't any elephants in my house.

From the FBI's own "mouth" on thwarted terrorist attacks:

www.fbi.gov...

Relevent excerpts: (Under "Effectiveness of Counter Terrorism Operations")

A more useful measure is one we have used in organized crime cases – the number of disruptions and dismantlements. This measure counts every time we – either by ourselves or with our partners in the law enforcement and intelligence communities – conduct an operation which disables, prevents, or interrupts terrorist fundraising, recruiting, training, or operational planning. Since September 11, 2001, the FBI has participated in dozens of such operations, disrupting a wide variety of domestic and international terrorist undertakings.

The FBI uses the specific case of Lyman Faris to highlight the effectiveness of anti-terrosim programs currently in place:

Faris initially came to our attention when information from a foreign source linked Faris to terrorists who had plotted attacks to coincide with Millennium celebrations. With help from FBI Headquarters, agents and other JTTF members in our Cincinnati field office undertook an extensive investigation and ultimately interviewed Faris in March 2003. During the interview, Faris admitted that he had personal contact with several individuals tied to terrorism. At about the same time, another foreign source indicated that an Ohio-based truck driver had been tasked to attack U.S. bridges, and particularly the Brooklyn Bridge. Once that information came together, we quickly composed a targeted plan for Faris’ interview team, assigned operational leads to field offices and JTTFs around the country, and teamed up with NYPD investigators and analysts.

As a result of these activities, Faris was arrested, and he ultimately pled guilty to the charge of Providing Material Support or Resources to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. On October 28, 2003, Faris was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He has been interviewed subsequent to his sentencing as part of his cooperation agreement with the government.

So while the metaphorical elephant in your example is clearly only a figment of one's imagination; the elephant in our backyard does, in fact, exist; as there have been documented disruptions and prevention of attacks here.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were
killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops...

...Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion,
and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a
public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in
advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

Oh, God, do I have to read such drivel?

No, I guess I don't, really. It's my choice to read this to see how far some people will sink in their efforts to discredit what they don't like.

Adolf Hitler:

Megalomaniac conqueror of continental Europe. Attacker of the UK, invader of North Africa, invader of the USSR, declared war on the US.

Saddam Hussein:

Megalomaniac conqueror of...what? Kuwait? Didn't we already throw him out?

Declared war on...who?

Gasser of his own people...ahh, Halabja. Which he isn't even charged with at that trial he's undergoing.

Attacker of Iran...and backed and supplied by the US, you know, the enemy of your enemy is your friend...

Possessor of much oil...

And here is another "foiled" terrorist attack in August of this year:

On 8/31, Director Mueller joined Attorney General Gonzales in announcing the indictment of four men—including three U.S. citizens and one lawful resident from Pakistan—for planning terrorist strikes in southern California later this year.

Their goal? To kill “infidels” by attacking U.S. military facilities...

And let's not forget the "Buffalo 5" and the ranch in Oregon that was a training camp for these scumabgs.

Thank You, George Bush, for having the cajones to deal with these very dangerous insects. Keep up the extermination program!!!

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Oh, God, do I have to read such drivel?

No, I guess I don't, really. It's my choice to read this to see how far some people will sink in their efforts to discredit what they don't like.

Howlrunner;

That was a toungue-in-cheek statement on how the left-leaning media would likely report on that invasion if it happened today.

Thank You, George Bush, for having the cajones to deal with these very dangerous insects. Keep up the extermination program!!!

If it is that more attacks were prevented its because more attacks have been attempted, and since they were prevented inside America you cannot give credit to the foreign policy for preventing them.

You may blame the foreign policy for motivating the increase in attacks though....

Thank you for painting yourself in a corner, and putting on a pretty bow.

So the FBI, in the 9/11 Commission's report (which commission was empowered, in part, to investigate intelligence failures among agencies including the FBI) claims that the FBI has successfully foiled terrorist attacks.

This is evidence?

You are certainly entitled to believe that the Bush administration's policies have prevented terrorist attacks, but I sincerely doubt that you, or anyone else, can prove it, and you certainly can't by posting a version of events related by the very agency that was so recently accused of failing to protect us on 9/11. Of course they're going to say that they have successfully prevented attacks-- their image, and more importantly their funding, depends on it.

Ironically, since this is the original topic of this thread, this is a fine example of the sort of thing that is at the heart of the WMD intelligence debate. The simple fact is that the intelligence was spotty to begin with, was already subject to human error and to deliberate misinterpretation, but was accepted unquestioningly by the Bush administration and his supporters not because they had any reason to believe it to be absolutely true, but because it supported their preconceptions. Similarly, it is now being criticized by Bush's opponents not because of any certainty of its falsehood, but because its falsehood supports their preconceptions.

The truth regarding the WMDs, as regarding the nominal prevention of terrorist attacks, no doubt lies somewhere in the middle, between the monochromatic interpretations upon which the partisans on each side of the issue insist.

The left-armed and left-eyed and the right-armed and right-eyed flail away at each other while...

well...

You know the rest.

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
...events related by the very agency that was so recently accused of failing to protect us on 9/11...

Yes; the very agency that, in part, failed US miserably. But then again; who could have possibly anticipated the degree of those attacks? And what would have happened if, BEFORE Sep 11 2001, the government put in place those security measures that we've come to know and love AFTER Sep 11 2001. The ACLU would have been all over the administration for creating the TSA and Homeland Defense. Passengers would be suing over the violation of their rights of privacy by having to remove articles of clothing. Everyone would be crying foul over the unwarranted attacks on civil liberties and rights. The 20/20 vision of hindsight clearly was a luxury not afforded to ANYONE before 911.

It is because of 911 that the security/crime prevention alphabet soups have improved their operations and are therefore successful in preventing other attacks in recent history.

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
The simple fact is that the intelligence was spotty to begin with, was already subject to human error and to deliberate misinterpretation, but was accepted unquestioningly by the Bush administration and his supporters not because they had any reason to believe it to be absolutely true, but because it supported their preconceptions.

By his supporters I assume you mean Germany France and Russia; all of whom whose independent intelligence agencies agreed that Iraq likely had WMD. Let's not forget that most Democrats also agreed with GB's assessment. The argument at the time wasn't over whether or not Iraq had WMD's, but rather, over whether or not Iraq posed enough of a threat to attack her.

The fact that no WMD's have yet been found is nothing more than political subterfuge on the part of the left as they continue to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic; for their party continues to drown in the in-fighting, bickering, and partison finger-pointing that even some of their own members (Lieberman etal) are growing weary of.

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
The truth regarding the WMDs, as regarding the nominal prevention of terrorist attacks, no doubt lies somewhere in the middle, between the monochromatic interpretations upon which the partisans on each side of the issue insist.

Fair enough Bob I'll take that at face value as often the truth is found somewhere in the middle (That's why I'm Independent Then I ask: What's the point in beating this dead horse? Why can't we get off the "We should have; We shouldn't have" argument and start looking at the situation for what it is today? (Which I believe thus far, is a success in progress).

Why are so many Americans quick to poo-poo everything we're doing in Iraq when 70% of Iraqis believe that things are going well for them and that 2/3rds of Iraqis believe the next year will be better? Shouldn't that be an indication that we're on the right track?

I agree with GB when he says; to paraphrase: [Democracy instills peace. The vast majority of global problems exist from nations that have no democracy]. I agree with him that having a democratic country in the heart of the middle east will stabilise the region over time.

And be prepared: We may have to go into Syria and Iran soon as well. The reason for going into Syria is straight-forward: That's where all the WMD's from Iraq are as Hussein moved them there before the war



[edit on 18-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

By his supporters I assume you mean Germany France and Russia; all of whom whose independent intelligence agencies agreed that Iraq likely had WMD.

They denied it.

America, specifically the Office of Special Plans, was the only one to believe that it was likely.

They rest agreed he had been disarmed long ago.

Israel, US, and UK were alone in the world playing the chicken little card.

And now they are all saying 'we told you so!'

Why are so many Americans quick to poo-poo everything we're doing in Iraq when 70% of Iraqis believe that things are going well for them and that 2/3rds of Iraqis believe the next year will be better? Shouldn't that be an indication that we're on the right track?

In the same poll a similar amount wanted America troops out.


[edit on 18-12-2005 by ArchAngel]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

And what would have happened if, BEFORE Sep 11 2001, the government put in place those security measures that we've come to know and love...

You LOVE the elimination of habeas corpus? You LOVE the power of the president to declare ANYONE to be a terrorist, and to then imprison that person, indefinitely, with no charges, no appeal, no trial, no outside contact and to not even have to let anyone know that the person even HAS been so imprisoned? You LOVE the FBI's power to break into your home and completely search everything everything you own, or to search through all of your financial, medical and other personal records WITHOUT A WARRANT?


You've just gone from a disturbing partisan to a genuinely frightening apologist for tyrants.

If this was Stalinist Russia, I'm sure you'd LOVE all the fine things the government was doing to ensure your security too, and you'd no doubt be proudly turning in all your neighbors to the KGB in order to further guarantee that security.

[MOD EDIT: AT THIS POINT THE POSTER'S COMMENTS BECAME UNACCEPTABLY OFFENSIVE...

...SO THE CONTENT HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM THE POST.] You are the reason that liberty is vanishing in America. You will bring the tyranny, and IF you ever come to realize what you have done, it will be too late to stop it. I can only hope that you do, sometime, see the results of your frightening misperceptions. Maybe when the government drags "terrorists" out of their houses and lines them up on the street and shoots them in your home town, you MIGHT just begin to see what you have done.

But no doubt those "terrorists" will be targeted because YOU'VE turned them in because they said bad things about the president, or good things about some foreign country, or just bad things about you.

Good bye.


[edit on 12-18-2005 by Valhall]

"If Iraq has to rely on its own efforts to produce nuclear material, one can do little better than the public estimate by German intelligence authorities last year which, citing major Iraqi procurement efforts that the Germans had knowledge of, determined that Iraq could, in the worst case, have a nuclear weapon in 3-6 years."

The Germans were well informed of the future threat Iraq imposed. Why they were opposed to the war (I don't think ever really said why) might involve some very nefarious reason of or relating to the OFF scandal (just me speculating).

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

And what would have happened if, BEFORE Sep 11 2001, the government put in place those security measures that we've come to know and love...

You LOVE the elimination of habeas corpus? You LOVE the power of the president to declare ANYONE to be a terrorist, and to then imprison that person, indefinitely, with no charges, no appeal, no trial,...

Relax Bob;

Go back and re-read what I wrote. The expression "we've come to know and love" is a sarcastic one since who in his/her right mind could actually love the inconvenient and humiliating way people are scrutinized and searched at airport security. Your bitter anger is blinding you so much that you completely missed the piont I was making in that sentence.

BTW: The answer to most of your questions in the previous post is an overwhelming YES!!! Whatever it takes to beat down those Islamofascist cockroaches. Fly them on secret CIA planes to countries whose saturday night entertainment involves battery cables and cold water!! Smack them down and squeeze them for every ounce of information. And after every fiber of their being has been spent, throw the pathogens in a cage for further interrogation later. I guarantee you these scumbags wouldn't give a second thought to removing your head from your body.

Also: Ain't nobody breaking into your home without a warrant. Habeas corpus has not been elliminated. Relax; you'll be OK. It's the Dems who gotcha all scared an' stuff!!lol:

Now back to our regularily scheduled topic....Or, stand-by for more insanity!!

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

BTW: The answer to most of your questions in the previous post is an overwhelming YES!!! Whatever it takes to beat down those Islamofascist cockroaches. Fly them on secret CIA planes to countries whose saturday night entertainment involves battery cables and cold water!! Smack them down and squeeze them for every ounce of information. And after every fiber of their being has been spent, throw the pathogens in a cage for further interrogation later. I guarantee you these scumbags wouldn't give a second thought to removing your head from your body.

I seem to remember a thread where a poster was banned for saying Jews were animals.

Does the same hold true for those who say Muslims are insects????

I detect a double standard here.

Here is a lecture given by Senator pat Roberts where he states:

"It is important to understand, the problems experienced were global in nature and involved the intelligence services of many countries. Almost everyone believed, regardless of how you felt about whether you should have unilateral military action or wait for the UN, there was no disagreement about the belief that weapons of mass destruction existed."

"Before the war, there was very little difference of opinion between U.S., British, German, Israeli, Russian, the UN and French, yes, even the French, intelligence with regard to whether or not Iraq had WMD."

"It is my view this was clearly an intelligence failure as opposed to alleged manipulation. When asked if they had any evidence that any of the 1,400 members of the Iraq Survey Team had been pressured to change their judgements, both Dr. David Kay and Charles Duelfer, the current team leader, stated the analysts were NOT pressured to make certain their pre-war intelligence reports conformed to a White House agenda on Iraq."

Bold has been added for emphasis.

After the decision was made to attack Iraq, France, Germany, and Russia all started to back-pedal on their intelligence reports. I again submit the OFF scandal as a possible reason for this; though that topic should be explored in another thread.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Does the same hold true for those who say Muslims are insects????

I detect a double standard here.

Let's see;

Islamofascists : Cockroaches
as
Muslims : Insects

R U Saying all Muslims are Islamofascists?

I've clearly defined Islamofascism in previous posts. AND it's been used in mainstream media and elsewhere.

Quibbling and obfuscation is an indication one has lost the capacity for logical and cogent discussion. I don't believe the mods will touch this as no comment has been made against Muslims.

No, ArchAngel, there is no double standard. As he pointed out he is talking about a specific group.

BUT

Freedom...I think you may be missing an important factor on the other side of this argument. The people being held (some now for over 4 years), being flown about the globe to "optimize" interrogation techniques, and being denied freedom, do NOT all qualify as an "Islamofascist". That would be a big bite of the major point here. They have not been charged, they have not had a trial, they are being held indefinitely on grounds or suspicions that are not even disclosed.

It is in violent opposition to our country's basic legal system and premises of what "freedom and liberty" are that these people are being held in captivity for indefinite periods of time with no charges or trials. And it doesn't matter that they are not U.S. citizens in the argument on this point, because it is a country that is using "spread democracy" as its mantra and its self-appointed raison d'être that is committing the trespasses against its own ideaology of what "democracy" means.

We are the only country on earth that currently has concentration camps for the sake of holding citizens of other countries without charge or trial, for the sake of apparently unending interrogation, just because we've decided they may know something, or know somebody, or have some possible circuitous connection to some thing.

That's not right. Worse yet, that's not American.

[edit on 12-19-2005 by Valhall]

I appreciate your point Valhall. Here's the fundamental problem.

We are talking about individuals who wear no uniform and carry no flag. They claim no institution of law as theirs except Islam and are commiting crimes in areas that are largely lawless. If we were to bring them to the states and charge them under US laws, they would likely have to be released under technicalities due to the fact that they have committed no crimes under US legal jurisdiction. And in fact, the ACLU has been very vocal on this subject matter. The same goes for virtually ANY civilized, westernized nation.

The geneva conventions do not apply since they wear no uniform and are not soldiers of any country. So what are we to do with them while we are engaged in this war on terrorism? Place them under some legal institution where they would likely have to be released?

They are in legal limbo as no specific set of laws seem to apply to them as the world has never before had to deal with this element of crime before. On the flip side of this coin, look at Jose Padilla, John Walker Lynd (sp) and Zacarius Masauwi (sp). Two are US citizens whose legal statuses are easily defined and are being/have been tried under US law because they are citizens. Masauwi isn't a citizen but since he was captured here and his crime was committed here, falls under US law and is therefore being tried under US law.

Some "insurgents" have been deported to their home country, when we were able to determine that, and when their country was willing to take them back under some defined legal status where they would be tried.

But what are we to do with the ones who seem to fit nowhere? How would you feel about a legal system forced to release these maggots because of technicalities? I know how I would feel. For the time being, places like Guantanamo is there to keep these criminals on ice until such a time when their legal statuses can be more clearly defined.

I understand what you're saying about being "un-American" and such. Unfortunately, our justice system isn't perfect and doesn't provide answers for every single legal circumstance that arises. This is one of those circumstances. Be patient because it's going to take awhile to find a legal means to deal with this situation.

Edited for minor grammar corrections

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]