THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure, we shouldn't actually believe anything that doesn't conform to our views of 'reality,' right Ican?

The poll doesn't say what you want, so you don't believe it?

Right

I can see why you bought the WMD angle hook, line and sinker: it told you exactly what you were looking to hear.

Cycloptichorn

You appear to be characterizing yourself; not me. You appear to have distorted your memory to believe what you want so that you can convince yourself that your false accusation is true.

I didn't buy the WMD argument, because I didn't believe that Saddam was dumb enough to be hiding ready-to-use WMD in Iraq right up to Powell's speech to the UN, February 5, 2003; and, I believed he certainly was not doing that at the time the USA invaded Iraq. At that time, I thought the ready-to-use WMD had been removed from Iraq prior to the USA invasion of Iraq. Later it was confirmed that there were no WMD in Iraq after 1992.

I did and still do buy these two reasons included in the Congress's 23 reasons:

Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...

Both of these whereases were confirmed more than once subsequent to the USA invasion of Iraq.

0 Replies

ican thinks his admission of Bush's mismanagement of the war allows him credibility to say Bush didn'tlie us into this war in Iraq. Once he believes something - even when false - he will argue to his grave.

ican, Did Bush ever lie to the American People? Please make a list for us when he did lie to the American People?

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

ican, "Bush did not lie us into war." That's an American minority opinion. The majority say he deliberately/intentionally misled/lied us into war.

How do you know that? Did you get that from a poll? If so, what poll?

0 Replies

"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours)

Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.

The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were ["likely used"] for making biological weapons....

The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment." --NYT, 08.09.03

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
�Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
�Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican thinks his admission of Bush's mismanagement of the war allows him credibility to say Bush didn'tlie us into this war in Iraq. Once he believes something - even when false - he will argue to his grave.

ican, Did Bush ever lie to the American People? Please make a list for us when he did lie to the American People?

I don't possess the ability to read Bush's mind. I think you do not possess that ability either. Until I have evidence to the contrary, I will believe Bush did not say what he knew was not true. In other words, Bush is innocent of lying until and unless he is proven guilty of lying like Clinton was proven guilty of lying.

Quote:

Once he believes something - even when false - he will argue to his grave.

I think that quote is characterizing you not me. You, like most guilty parties concealing their guilt, accuses others of what you did and do.

0 Replies

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post

*********************************************************
Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Friday, June 6, 2003 Posted: 5:17 PM EDT (2117 GMT)

(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"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

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

Yes, I remember this. But I did not at the time believe Saddam actually possessed ready-to-use WMD when the USA invaded Iraq. I believe only that the administration thought it was true. Also, "banned weapons" are not all the same thing as ready-to-use WMD.

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours)

Yes, I remember this. But I did not at the time believe Saddam actually possessed ready-to-use WMD when the USA invaded Iraq. I believe only that the administration thought it was true.

Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.

The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were ["likely used"] for making biological weapons....

The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment." --NYT, 08.09.03

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
�Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
�Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

Yes, I remember this. But as I said before, I did not at the time believe Saddam actually possessed ready-to-use WMD when the USA invaded Iraq. I believe only that the administration thought at the time that Saddam actually possessed ready-to-use WMD .

They never said that Iraq possessed ready-to-use nuclear weapons. They did say they believed Saddam was developing nuclear weapons. They were wrong.

0 Replies

November 13, 2005
Not the Same Intelligence, Not the Same Will to WarHere's a whopper that Bush has been serving up lately:

"... more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence [as the White House] -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
The two major lies in that statement: that the Democrats in the Senate had the same intel, and that they approved of the war. The first is an outright lie: they did not have the same intelligence. They had, for the most part, the intelligence that the White House provided them, which is by far not the same thing. One case in point is a story that came out just a few days after the Iraq Resolution was passed in Congress. It turns out that 12 days earlier, North Korea had admitted to having a nuclear weapons program. This intelligence, which may have strongly influenced the votes of members of Congress, was deliberately withheld by the White House; the Democrats in Congress did not have that same intel, and this was known right from the outset.

Another example that has been pointed out more recently is that the Bush administration had access to information that said their intel was not as solid as they were telling Congress; that caveats and reports of sources who were probably fabricating their claims were being withheld. One very specific case in point was the fact that the administration knew that one of their informants, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was probably lying; this intel was not shared with Democrats at the time, and the information that the administration knew was probably false was used by them to bolster their calls for war.

Yet another example is the perspective we have with the Downing Street Memos, which stated that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." This again demonstrates that the quality of intelligence coming into the Bush administration varied greatly from the quality of intelligence going from the administration to the Congress.

The second lie is a bit trickier: it's one of those lies which is literally true, but clearly implies something which is completely false. Yes, Democrats did vote for the war resolution. But that's not Bush's point: by mentioning this, he is saying that Democrats were in complete agreement with him in going to war. And that is completely untrue.

On October 7, 2002, Bush stated that:

"I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."
Bush was making clear that he was not on a rush to war, and that he was seeking the joint resolution from Congress only so as to use it to pressure Hussein to open up to inspections so we could disarm him, and that war was a last resort. This promise was also made clear in a speech by John Kerry just a few days before the October 2002 vote:
"Let there be no doubt or confusion: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm [Hussein] by force, if we ever exhaust those other options as the president has promised. But I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible."Here's what it boils down to: what the Democrats agreed to was not for Bush to rush to war as he did, but rather to give Bush the authority necessary to pressure Iraq into cooperating, and to go to war only as a last resort--a promise which Bush clearly did not follow. So to say now that Democrats were behind him is, to put it bluntly, a bald-faced lie.

The weasel about how Democrats voted for the war also works along the lines of "Clinton / the U.N. / everybody believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD." As I have pointed out before, this statement, while literally true, is egregiously misleading. Yes, others believed that Hussein had WMD; however, few if any believed that he had "massive stockpiles," or that he had a nuclear weapon or was close to getting one, or that he was anywhere near enough of a threat so as to do anything more than continue sanctions.

Bush has demonstrated a long-standing predilection for spinning this kind of lie, subtly using true statements to create an absolutely false impression.

0 Replies

September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda attacked USA.

October 7, 2001, the USA invaded Afghanistan.

December 2001, after they fled from Afghanistan, Al Qaeda obtained sanctuary in Iraq.

Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Oct. 16, 2002 Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...

February 5, 2003, Powell in his speech to the UN, falsely claimed Iraq possessed ready-to-use WMD, and correctly claimed al Qaeda had obtained sanctuary in Iraq and was growing.

March 20, 2003, the USA finally invaded Iraq.

0 Replies

'Shocking' video: Shi'a Iraqi soldiers beat Sunnis as US trainers watch

David Edwards
Published: Thursday January 25, 2007

Dramatic footage of mostly Shi'a Iraqi soldiers delivering a "brutal beating" to several local Sunnis has been obtained by a British public-service television station.

US soldiers, assigned to train the Iraqi troops, look on as the Iraqi soldiers push the beaten men into the rear compartment of an armored vehicle.

"It is a shocking insight into the sectarian violence that is tearing Baghdad apart," Jonathan Miller reports for Channel Four. "Two journalists - embedded with the First Cavalry division - witnessed suspected insurgents being viciously beaten and abused."

According to Channel Four, American troops then threatened the journalists and held them under armed guard, while attempting to "seize their footage."

"US Army commander Lieutenant Colonel Dale C Kuehl told Channel 4 News he had taken administrative action to include suspending the platoon sergeant," Channel Four reports.

A clip from Channel Four's report can be watched below:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Shia_Iraqi_soldiers_beat_Sunnis_0125.html

0 Replies

Bush: "We don't torture our prisoners."

Bush: 'We Don't Torture'

The President says information already obtained from interrogating terror suspects has protected the country from attack.

0 Replies

The USA does not kill, maim, cripple, disable, wound, or beat its prisoners.

The USA's terrorist enemies do kill, maim, cripple, disable, wound, and beat their prisoners.

The USA does interrogate its prisoners by frightening, humiliating, fatiguing, and isolating them. By means of this kind of interrogation, the USA learns about the location of enemy ordnance and murderers, and learns about enemy plans for killing non-killers early enough to prevent their implementation.

0 Replies

Retreat Isn't an Option
By Liz Cheney
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; A17

Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, " I'm in to win." Anyone
who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that
she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the
same way about the war.

In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop
levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution,
has company on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the
only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. We
Republicans -- with help from senators such as Chuck Hagel -- seem
ready to race the Democrats to the bottom.

I'd like to ask the politicians in both parties who are heading for
the hills to stop and reflect on these basic facts:

* We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would
be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama
suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't
make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death
somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their
jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer,
more deadly struggle later.

* Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as
spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment,"
"drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability
of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't
take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman
Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and
spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us
to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of
proving them right.

* Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious
concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals).
They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say
that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to
conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would
rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that
asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to
retreat.

* Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the
war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid
Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave
activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of speech,
freedom of religion, the empowerment of women. They risk their lives
every day to defeat the forces of terrorism. They can't win without
us, and many of them won't continue to fight if they believe we're
abandoning them. Politicians urging America to quit in Iraq should
explain how we win the war on terrorism once we've scared all of our
allies away.

What about Iran? There is no doubt that an American retreat from Iraq
will embolden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, making it even less likely that the
Iranian president will bend to the will of the international community
and halt his nuclear weapons program.

A member of Lebanon's parliament recently told me that Lebanese
Sunnis, Shiites and Christians are lining up with Iran and Syria to
fight against Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who want to stand with
America. When I asked him why people were lining up with Iran and
Syria, he said, "Because they know Iran and Syria aren't going
anyplace. We're not so sure about America."

* Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to
them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom.
No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and
insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily. American troops will
win if we show even one-tenth the courage here at home that they show
every day on the battlefield. And by the way, you cannot wish failure
on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting
the troops. It just doesn't compute.

I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In
2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage
and conviction about this war many of her male colleagues have. Steel
in the spine? Not so much.

America deserves better. It's time for everyone -- Republicans and
Democrats -- to stop trying to find ways for America to quit. Victory
is the only option. We must have the fortitude and the courage to do
what it takes. In the words of Winston Churchill, we must deserve
victory.

We must be in it to win.

The writer is former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for
Near Eastern affairs.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

The USA does not kill, maim, cripple, disable, wound, or beat its prisoners.

The USA does interrogate its prisoners by frightening, humiliating, fatiguing, and isolating them. By means of this kind of interrogation, the USA learns about the location of enemy ordnance and murderers, and learns about enemy plans for killing non-killers early enough to prevent their implementation.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Oh I forgot, you DO believe anything.

0 Replies

Now we know this "surge" is going to work because Bush said it has to work.

Quote:

source

(I realize this mostly unconfirmed on a left leaning blog, but I thought it was kinda funny but sad all at the same time if he really said it.)

0 Replies

Yeah, when I need advice on the correct way to move forward, I always think to look to Liz Cheney to show me the way.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

During the senate hearings for his comfirmation, General Patreaus told the committee that Iraq requires a "political" solution as well as a military one. If Bush is refuses to have diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors, how in the world does General Patreus think he will succeed in Iraq?

0 Replies

Oh, he doesn't. He's just doing his job. Can't blame the guy; he's told to go try and win, so he will.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
The USA does not kill, maim, cripple, disable, wound, or beat its prisoners.

The USA does interrogate its prisoners by frightening, humiliating, fatiguing, and isolating them. By means of this kind of interrogation, the USA learns about the location of enemy ordnance and murderers, and learns about enemy plans for killing non-killers early enough to prevent their implementation.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Oh I forgot, you DO believe anything.

If you do not believe it, then say why you do not believe it. Then supply some evidence to support your reason for not believing it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Oh, he doesn't. He's just doing his job. Can't blame the guy; he's told to go try and win, so he will.

Cycloptichorn

of course , he really has little to lose ; he'll get his pension no matter what .
hbg

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know