Regarding Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, please remember that Bush Sr. OK'd this. Our State Dept., including our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, told Saddam that we are not concerned with ME borders. We were implying that Saddam could take the northern Kuwait oil fields. Saddam read it as an OK to take Kuwait.
McGentrix wrote:candidone1 wrote:Iran, N. Korea and the Taliban in Afghanistan were clearly more worthy of America's undivided attention.
Can you expand on that for us? I am curious how you decided that.
How I've decided that??? This has nothing to do with me or my decisions.
Look around McG. Saddam was a benign....brat at most. At least with respect to the US's interests. Denying this fact simply elucidates your inability, even after the fact, to acknowledge how much of a triviality Hussein was vis a vis the US.
hamburger wrote:mcg wrote :
Quote:Quote:candidone1 wrote:
Iran, N. Korea and the Taliban in Afghanistan were clearly more worthy of America's undivided attention.
Can you expand on that for us? I am curious how you decided that.
i'm sure mcg knows that the taliban all over afghanistan and in particular PAKISTAN - there are several posts on that already .
i think it was in 2001 that president bush announced he'd give pakistan a bit more time to deal with the taliban - we are now in 2007 - and from all reports , the taliban in pakistan have established themselves quite nicely .
no surprise there , is there ?
oh yes , doesn't pakistan have atomic weapons too and helped iran to advance its atomic cababilities ?
hbg
Pakistan wasn't on candidone1's list. I guess he doesn't consider important enough.
This is why having any sort of flowing conversation is pointless. People like hamburger want to discuss something entirely different instead of addressing the post he is quoting.
What was the point of quoting my post hamburger?
candidone1 wrote:McGentrix wrote:candidone1 wrote:Iran, N. Korea and the Taliban in Afghanistan were clearly more worthy of America's undivided attention.
Can you expand on that for us? I am curious how you decided that.
How I've decided that??? This has nothing to do with me or my decisions.
Look around McG. Saddam was a benign....brat at most. At least with respect to the US's interests. Denying this fact simply elucidates your inability, even after the fact, to acknowledge how much of a triviality Hussein was vis a vis the US.
candidone1 wrote:But my point was that there was more than adequate intel contrary to the administrations claims, but they were ignored....and intel was either manufactured or tailored to suit their MO. I asked why "Saddam was chosen" not because I was unaware of his alleged violations, but because Iran, N. Korea and the Taliban in Afghanistan were clearly more worthy of America's undivided attention.
That is your quote isn't it?
How did YOU decide that? How did YOU come to the conclusion that "Iran, N. Korea and the Taliban in Afghanistan were clearly more worthy of America's undivided attention."?
Did you base it on some information you read somewhere? Did you reach that conclusion based on a tv show you watched? Did Martians beam that opinion into your head?
I'll bet you a dollar the President has access to better intelligence then you do.
I didn't refer to Pakistan because, IMO, it has only become a major concern since the US invasion of Iraq. Prior to 2001, the level of terrorist support was much lower.
The US relied heavily on Pakistan's cooperation during the invasion of Iraq in 2001. There were questions regarding Pakistan's commitment to America's objectives, but they were nevertheless an ally immediately post 9/11.
Besides, Pakistan has a nuke. We all know the US would never launch a war against someone who may actually strike back.
CNN REPORTS IN 2004 :
Quote:Bush: Afghanistan is a victory over terrorism
Hamid Karzai thanks U.S. for aiding his country
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 Posted: 0213 GMT (1013 HKT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday claimed victory in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and announced what he called five new initiatives to strengthen the links between that country and the United States.
full article :
AFGHANISTAN 2004 - PRESIDENT BUSH : VICTORY !
NYT REPORTS IN 2007 :
Quote:Afghan President Bringing Bush Gloomy Report on Security
August 6, 2007, Monday
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG (NYT); Foreign Desk
Afghan Pres Hamid Karzai paints bleak picture of life in his country on eve of Camp David meeting with Pres Bush; says security has worsened and that US and its allies are no closer to capturing Osama bin Laden
AFGANISTAN 2007 - PRESIDENT KARZAI : BEARER OF BAD NEWS !
let's see :
2004 VICTORY !
2007 BLEAK PICTURE !
i wonder what happened between 2004 and 2007 ?
anyone have any idea ?
hbg
That's what we get from a Harvard graduate who's father paid for his diploma.
candidone1 wrote:Foofie, I don't seem to follow your method of discourse...this is, of course, verbal ping-pong to a large degree, and it appears that once the volley became more difficult to return, you bail. Am I safe to assume that "defending your comments about the President" are too personal for you to continue doing--like the question asked elsewhere if you served in the military?
Perhaps you need to reiterate the purpose of the sidewalk you have laid around yourself so other members of A2K can tread lightly around you--or simply place you over in the scrap pile with Zippo and Solve.
It's best to lay down the ground rules in advance so others know how you play.
Don't get me involved with a point being made. Don't ask personal questions.
Like we're literally virtual strangers. Discussing some position, on whatever, does not mean I'm comfortable in giving myself technicolor, so to speak.
For all I know the singularity has been achieved, and I'm discussing a position with a computer. No difference to me.
Foofie is Goofie, and I mean that in the most kind way.
cicerone imposter wrote:woiyo, Oh, you mean this resolution that the UN were in Iraq to verify Saddam had no more WMDs.
From Wiki:
Resolution 1441 specifically stated:
That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
That this represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed. That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations".
Bush, unfortunately, chased out the UN weapon's inspectors to start his illegal war.
In my opinion, this resolution coupled with intelligence reports as well as Iraq failure to live up tot he terms of surrender, gave us a valid reason to go in, remove the regime, inspect for ourselves the status of the WMD claims then leave once we completed the tasks.
GW, unfortunately, forgot to leave.
Does anyone remember that war between Iraq and Iran a couple of decades ago? Big battles were fought, I thought. Now, fast forward to today. Iran may very well get the bomb. What if Iraq still had its prior leader? Doesn't it seem plausible that he too would feel it necessary to get the bomb? Then what? The potential for a real mess somewhere in the future.
In fact, even without Iran having the bomb, but just developing its nuclear energy capacity, would likely make the prior Iraq want to do the same. Both peaceful energy efforts could be converted to a war effort, obviously, in the future, if there was another Iraq/Iran war. The world does not need this as a Sword of Damocles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Damocles)
I think we did a tremendous service to the world by taking this one chess piece off the playing board.
Having been the only nation to use the bomb, the U.S. might have just inherited the moral responsibility to try to prevent the bomb's destructiveness from being used again. Europe is busy "playing nice" with each other in the EU, and enjoying some prosperity. I believe the responsibility falls to the U.S. (the U.N. is flaccid, in my opinion).
I understand many people state vehemently that the U.S. should not be "the policemen of the world." Well, without the U.S. the world can become Dodge City with no Marshall. In a nuclear age, that's not a pretty thought.
I know many wouldn't agree with me, but for the privilege of living in the U.S., I believe everyone owes this country a little time during one's youth. Doesn't have to be military service; it can be some domestic effort. But, America is not just one big shopping mall to spend an afternoon in; it's a country that is the only superpower in the world. With that comes responsibilities.
To not be the only superpower in the world, we'd have to disband a good percentage of the military, sell the military hardware (ships, planes, tanks, etc.) as either scrap metal or discount it for smaller countries to afford to buy. I'll stop talking "silly"; we are a superpower, and the world needs us. Thank goodness the world's one superpower is us. Not everyone realizes we are the good guys?
McGentrix wrote:
I'll bet you a dollar the President has access to better intelligence then you do.
Better intelligence?? You kidding me? Nearly everything this administration fed the American public about Iraq turned out to be patently false.
So, no, he did not have access to "better" intel....he had access to all the intel that supported his decision to attack Iraq, as weak as it may have been at the time....and you're a fool to
continue to believe late in 2007 that there was any truth to the per-invasion intel.
Many of us knew better at the time. I was one of them. It must pain you to know that there were a bunch of liberal pussies out there who were actually right for a change.
....you can keep your dollar.
candidone1 wrote:McGentrix wrote:
I'll bet you a dollar the President has access to better intelligence then you do.
Better intelligence?? You kidding me? Nearly everything this administration fed the American public about Iraq turned out to be patently false.
So, no, he did not have access to "better" intel....he had access to all the intel that supported his decision to attack Iraq, as weak as it may have been at the time....and you're a fool to
continue to believe late in 2007 that there was any truth to the per-invasion intel.
Many of us knew better at the time. I was one of them. It must pain you to know that there were a bunch of liberal pussies out there who were actually right for a change.
....you can keep your dollar.
Prior administrations came to the same conclusions, based upon the same "bad" intel, as GW did.
Yet, you better? OK!
Oh, really?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
Quote: On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
Were the senators informed of this? No.
Quote: In the congressional debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, even those voting against it gave credence to the notion that Saddam possessed WMD. Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, "Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity." Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence.
Read the whole thing...
Bush had ample evidence that there were no WMD in Iraq; he just chose to ignore it, b/c it didn't fit the narrative for the war he wanted to start. You do realize that he, and the other top Neocons who run the WH,
wanted to go to war in Iraq? That's what sets him apart from previous administrations; Bush actively sought to start an aggressive war.
Cycloptichorn
And it was "illegal." Bush overlooked/ignored the conditions of their approval.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Oh, really?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
Quote: On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
Were the senators informed of this? No.
Quote: In the congressional debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, even those voting against it gave credence to the notion that Saddam possessed WMD. Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, "Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity." Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence.
Read the whole thing...
Bush had ample evidence that there were no WMD in Iraq; he just chose to ignore it, b/c it didn't fit the narrative for the war he wanted to start. You do realize that he, and the other top Neocons who run the WH,
wanted to go to war in Iraq? That's what sets him apart from previous administrations; Bush actively sought to start an aggressive war.
Cycloptichorn
2 former CIA agents, apparently in the upper echelon based on the discussions they had with Tenet, decide to discuss matters of national security, anonymously, to a reporter for Salon.com and you have no doubts about their credibility? Of course you don't, what they are saying because you have your mind made up.
Sounds like a you have the same issue you accuse Bush of having.
McGentrix wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Oh, really?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
Quote: On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
Were the senators informed of this? No.
Quote: In the congressional debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, even those voting against it gave credence to the notion that Saddam possessed WMD. Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, "Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity." Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence.
Read the whole thing...
Bush had ample evidence that there were no WMD in Iraq; he just chose to ignore it, b/c it didn't fit the narrative for the war he wanted to start. You do realize that he, and the other top Neocons who run the WH,
wanted to go to war in Iraq? That's what sets him apart from previous administrations; Bush actively sought to start an aggressive war.
Cycloptichorn
2 former CIA agents, apparently in the upper echelon based on the discussions they had with Tenet, decide to discuss matters of national security, anonymously, to a reporter for Salon.com and you have no doubts about their credibility? Of course you don't, what they are saying because you have your mind made up.
Sounds like a you have the same issue you accuse Bush of having.
Is it confirmation of the truth? Not necessarily, but it is, ample evidence.
This isn't a matter of 'national security.' I don't think you even know what that means any more.
Cycloptichorn
McG and friends allows the exposure of a CIA agent, and supports this administration's actions, while they claim what (2) CIA agents confirms what Tenet told the president as breaching security. Their brains are calcified with no hope of any cure.
What you guys are missing is this.
They were not in the room when Tenet talked to Bush and they have ZERO evidence to back up their claim beyond what they felt like saying to what is essentially a left wing mouth piece.
Would you accept an article from townhall.com that said 2 anonymous CIA agents confirmed that Saddam was believed to have had WMD's? Despite the fact it was hearsay and had ZERO evidence to back up their claims? Of course not. So why would you expect anyone to believe ths horseshit?
Oh yeah, you have your mind made.
McGentrix wrote:What you guys are missing is this.
They were not in the room when Tenet talked to Bush and they have ZERO evidence to back up their claim beyond what they felt like saying to what is essentially a left wing mouth piece.
Would you accept an article from townhall.com that said 2 anonymous CIA agents confirmed that Saddam was believed to have had WMD's? Despite the fact it was hearsay and had ZERO evidence to back up their claims? Of course not. So why would you expect anyone to believe ths horseshit?
Oh yeah, you have your mind made.
You are describing
exactly the evidence that the Bushies trumpeted to Congress in order to lead us to war: the vast majority of it came from one 'curveball,' who was completely wrong.
You are aware that the position is somewhat strengthened by the fact that, when we arrived in Iraq, there were no WMD to be found? Whereas your position, and that of Bush, is weakened due to their lack of presence?
The article stated, if you had read it, that Tenet told Bush that a former top Saddam guy said they didn't have any WMD. That's not zero evidence; that's testimony by someone who was on the inside. It isn't dispositive evidence that there were no WMD, but it isn't zero evidence either - and it wasn't communicated to Congress, as often is trumpeted by those who are looking to spread the blame around.
Cycloptichorn
