Yawn, Bush's Suprise Visit to Iraq Today

From the same article:

Quote:

"Tenet told me he briefed the president personally," said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush's response was to call the information "the same old thing." Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. "The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a **** about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So how does that work exactly?

One day around the water cooler Tenet and these 2 guys are discussing the game and Tenet just blurts that out? "Oh, by the way, I was at the White House yesterday and I was talking to Dubya about that Sabri guy, right? Wouldn't ya know it, ol' Dubya just says "heh, same old thing." Can you believe that?"

Again, you have 2 unidentified people who claim to work in the CIA giving hearsay evidence, but you believe it. You don't give a **** about the evidence. You have your mind made up.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So how does that work exactly?

One day around the water cooler Tenet and these 2 guys are discussing the game and Tenet just blurts that out? "Oh, by the way, I was at the White House yesterday and I was talking to Dubya about that Sabri guy, right? Wouldn't ya know it, ol' Dubya just says "heh, same old thing." Can you believe that?"

Again, you have 2 unidentified people who claim to work in the CIA giving hearsay evidence, but you believe it. You don't give a **** about the evidence. You have your mind made up.

Well, are you still insisting that there are WMD buried in the sands of Syria, McG? Laughing

It seems there's a lot of selective belief going around.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
So how does that work exactly?

One day around the water cooler Tenet and these 2 guys are discussing the game and Tenet just blurts that out? "Oh, by the way, I was at the White House yesterday and I was talking to Dubya about that Sabri guy, right? Wouldn't ya know it, ol' Dubya just says "heh, same old thing." Can you believe that?"

Again, you have 2 unidentified people who claim to work in the CIA giving hearsay evidence, but you believe it. You don't give a **** about the evidence. You have your mind made up.

Well, are you still insisting that there are WMD buried in the sands of Syria, McG? It seems there's a lot of selective belief going around.

Cycloptichorn

Oh right, can't defend your liberal rag anymore so change the subject. Typical.

0 Replies

Can you, then, McG, provide us with the sources that the Bush administration used to spoon feed these gems to the world?

Quote:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

Source

It's a pretty strong case made against Iraq. There appears to be reams of very strong and very compelling evidence. Why is it that the government who you claim had better intelligence than I did happened to be wrong on every single charge they made agains that regime.

You can believe that they had the best intel....but the truth is probably more likely that it was the best intel the CIA could buy.

0 Replies

ican and McG continue to support this administration that's been bankrupt since day one, and they refuse to see all the evidence presented. There's no way to convince people when their brain has calcified into the indoctrination of the neocons. That's the reason why they still see "progress" when there are none.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican and McG continue to support this administration that's been bankrupt since day one, and they refuse to see all the evidence presented. There's no way to convince people when their brain has calcified into the indoctrination of the neocons. That's the reason why they still see "progress" when there are none.

Well, I understood their position when it was 2003. We simply saw things differently then.
It's now 2007 and most of us can look into the past and admit where we went wrong, if we in fact were wrong. Clearly, there are some people who are more drawn to the appeal of truthiness...eh McG? Facts just mess **** up.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Can you, then, McG, provide us with the sources that the Bush administration used to spoon feed these gems to the world?

Quote:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

Source

It's a pretty strong case made against Iraq. There appears to be reams of very strong and very compelling evidence. Why is it that the government who you claim had better intelligence than I did happened to be wrong on every single charge they made agains that regime.

You can believe that they had the best intel....but the truth is probably more likely that it was the best intel the CIA could buy.

How abouth the prior adminiatration?

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

WMD intel pre-dated Bush

We know that, of course, but many in the press would like you to forget it, and to believe that before George W. Bush came into office, no one had ever mentioned "Iraq" and "WMD" in the same breath.

Robert Kagan begs to differ. Quite rightly. And, as he points out, Judy Miller was not the only journalist writing such reports.

A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one

http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/10/25/wmd-intel-pre-dated-bush/

Looks like everyone was wrong.

0 Replies

This merely another version of Godwin's Law. First one to bring up Clinton when discussing the current administration loses their foothold in the discussion.

That being said, bad intel is bad intel. Whether Clinton had the same bad intel or not, it was bad intel. Bush just decided to spend billions and potentially kill a million people based on this bad intel.

If you want to invoke Clinton, let's talk about the consequences of each President's actions vis a vis this bad intel.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

This merely another version of Godwin's Law. First one to bring up Clinton when discussing the current administration loses their foothold in the discussion.

That being said, bad intel is bad intel. Whether Clinton had the same bad intel or not, it was bad intel. Bush just decided to spend billions and potentially kill a million people based on this bad intel.

If you want to invoke Clinton, let's talk about the consequences of each President's actions vis a vis this bad intel.

What does "potentially kill a million" mean? That word "potentially" with the word "kill" means what? The number of dead civilians in Iraq is nowhere near that "potential," I thought.

The word "potentially" just reminds me of a mother's warning: Son, eat your spinach or you can "potentially" not grow to be big and strong.

"Potentially" has been used in the past (certainly not here) as a scare word. I won't be frightened if we actually killed that many Iraqi's, whether they are enemy combatents or collateral damage.

0 Replies

I guess that's the difference between the so-called liberal position and the Compassionate Conservatives who still, laughably, support Bush.

Thanks for this Foofie:

Foofie wrote:

I won't be frightened if we actually killed that many Iraqi's, whether they are enemy combatents or collateral damage.

It just proves how ignorant and unworthy you are of any attention on this board. It takes a really sick and extremely pathetic individual to not care about innocent men, women and children having their limbs blown off or burning to death. You embody all that is wrong with the Conservative American mind.

0 Replies

I knew from early on why Foofie didn't seem normal; now I know. She's like Bush; wants total secrecy, but doesn't have any compassion for humans that look any different than her. Scary, that there are so many in our own back yard.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

I guess that's the difference between the so-called liberal position and the Compassionate Conservatives who still, laughably, support Bush.

Thanks for this Foofie:

Foofie wrote:
I won't be frightened if we actually killed that many Iraqi's, whether they are enemy combatents or collateral damage.

It just proves how ignorant and unworthy you are of any attention on this board. It takes a really sick and extremely pathetic individual to not care about innocent men, women and children having their limbs blown off or burning to death. You embody all that is wrong with the Conservative American mind.

I'm not a Conservative. I just won't be frightened by the word "potentially," even if it came to pass.

Whether or not you know of the Vietnam War. I believe the following link will show that the U.S., under a Democratic President, really did a job on the adversary there, including civilians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

Should all the people alive during that war lament those losses? What if they just lived their lives, without concern?

When are we allowed to live our lives, without "feeling the pain" of others? Or, is "not feeling their pain" some sort of sin of omission?

And, by accusing me of being a Conservative, and not "deserving" of functioning on the forum, when did this forum become a "liberal's only" forum?

My reaction, that irritated you, is quite progressive, since in the U.S. there are people that would deal with Iraq in a more forceful manner, to say the least.

Perhaps, you are not aware of the dichotomy of feelings in the U.S. during Vietnam. Oh, there were many anti-war, but there were those that just said, "America, Love It or Leave It." Some soldiers also called the Vietcong "Gooks." Not a compliment. This was all under a Democratic President that instituted the Great Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society , desegregation, and was admired by many.

This country has been through many wars, including that one from 1860 to 1865, where families fought each other. More died in that war than any other war. Amazing, Americans killing Americans. Should everyone be condemned that lived then?

My point is, this is a forum, but I don't think it's realistic to think one's position is objective truth. It's one's belief, just like one's feelings of compassion are one's own feelings. Mirror neurons in the brain can make some people more compassionate than others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neurons

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

I guess that's the difference between the so-called liberal position and the Compassionate Conservatives who still, laughably, support Bush.

Thanks for this Foofie:

Foofie wrote:
I won't be frightened if we actually killed that many Iraqi's, whether they are enemy combatents or collateral damage.

It just proves how ignorant and unworthy you are of any attention on this board. It takes a really sick and extremely pathetic individual to not care about innocent men, women and children having their limbs blown off or burning to death. You embody all that is wrong with the Conservative American mind.

You say this garbage now, but in the next breath you will say you want the US out of Iraq leaving every civilian in Iraq at risk. Men, women, children will be killed in the name one faction fighting for control over the next.

That is what is wrong with your whiny liberal position. You don't really care for the Iraqi civilians so please do us all a favor and stop pretending you do.

0 Replies

Be it a Democrat or Republican led war, I abhor the very premise, first of all, of war, secondly of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, and finally the notion of collateral damage.

You seem to think that it matters whether or not a democrat or a republican led a conflict, or that partisanship somehow permits me to condone one while at the same time, condemning the other.

This forum is not a liberals only forum, but I would expect that any human would have a modicum of empathy and understanding for those subjected to years of violence at the hands of an occupying force as well as warring factions within thier own people.

You see, this exposes the double standard by which the American right seems to operate--you attempt to legitimize and justify your despicable position by claiming that there is a contingent within the US who would advocate for much harsher action in Iraq (meaning: pay far less attention to who gets killed ,where, why and how), yet you openly chastize the "barbarians" who target innocent men women and children through suicide bombings. You rely heavily on the historical abuse of Iraqi civilians by the Hussein regime and champion Freedom For All Iraqis, while at the same time openly admitting that you do not care if a million combatants or innocent civilians are to perish in this conflict.

You champion freedom for the Iraqis from under Hussein yet you contend that a million civilian deaths is of little concern to you. Like I said, you are a sick and despicable hypocrite.

On a side note, from your wiki link:

Quote:

It is not normally possible to study single neurons in the human brain, so scientists can not be certain that humans have mirror neurons.

___________________________________

So, I am not entirely sure why you have invoked a hypothetical brain function into a political discussion....especially one that, should it actually exist or function in the manner neuroscientists and neurophilosophers have hypothesized, would explain away ones freedom or choice in feeling empathy. I mean...if they exist, you either have mirror neurons that function properly, or you don't. Should the case be made that one has a neuron deficiency of some sort or degree, then one is simply incapable of feeling the same sorts of empathy as their neighbor....and it is the fault of the brain, and not the agent.

It must be comforting to believe that you really have no choice in how and when to feel empathy. Once could make the argument that someone who does not feel empathy is either a sociopath (a condition characterized by an individual's common disregard for social rules, norms, and cultural codes, as well as impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others.) or a psychopath (one who uses charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse")

Wear either of those titles proudly. Maybe we could get you a personalized T-shirt and ballcap.

Sociopath
Psychopath

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

This merely another version of Godwin's Law. First one to bring up Clinton when discussing the current administration loses their foothold in the discussion.

That being said, bad intel is bad intel. Whether Clinton had the same bad intel or not, it was bad intel. Bush just decided to spend billions and potentially kill a million people based on this bad intel.

If you want to invoke Clinton, let's talk about the consequences of each President's actions vis a vis this bad intel.

Point of FACT is Presidents make decisions based upon the best intel they have at the time a decision needs to be made.

Clinton reacted to the best intel he had and dropped bombs on Iraq.

GW, using the "same best intel" he had at the time was more aggressive since we had been attacked.

If we were attacked during Clintons admin, my guess is he may have acted differently than he did.

Would you agree?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
This merely another version of Godwin's Law. First one to bring up Clinton when discussing the current administration loses their foothold in the discussion.

That being said, bad intel is bad intel. Whether Clinton had the same bad intel or not, it was bad intel. Bush just decided to spend billions and potentially kill a million people based on this bad intel.

If you want to invoke Clinton, let's talk about the consequences of each President's actions vis a vis this bad intel.

Point of FACT is Presidents make decisions based upon the best intel they have at the time a decision needs to be made.

Clinton reacted to the best intel he had and dropped bombs on Iraq.

GW, using the "same best intel" he had at the time was more aggressive since we had been attacked.

If we were attacked during Clintons admin, my guess is he may have acted differently than he did.

Would you agree?

But we weren't attacked by Iraq... how many times does this have to be repeated?

The fact that a group of terrorists flew a plane into our buildings, doesn't justify unrestrained warfare against whoever we want.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

That is a point of FACT that the Bush sycophants are eager to sweep under the rug....there is and has never been a link between Iraq and the events of 9/11. In fact, there is more evidence that Saddam and al Qaeda were in opposition to one another than they were in collusion.

0 Replies

Can you imagine if Clinton had attacked Iraq with the same conditions from congress? The repubs would be up in arms!

0 Replies

...as would I, and I'm sure you would have been too CI. A war that reeks of illegality, immorality and illegitimacy, be it a republican or democrat led, is morally reprehensible. But who could expect moral behavior from such a morally bankrupt bunch. If this was Clinton....he'd need to be strung up by his nuts just like Bush should be.

0 Replies

Yawn, Bush's Suprise Visit to Iraq Today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know