THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

ican711nm wrote:

Congress will question Petraeus in September just as Congress questioned Petraeus in July.

The people who without providing evidence chant the pseudo-liberal slanderous dirge that the administration's analysis of the situation in Iraq is not to be trusted, are repeatedly announcing they are frauds or fools, and are themselves not to be trusted..

Well, the WH was working to keep this from happening, actually. Several senators had to publicly complain in order to shame the WH into allowing him to testify publicly.

I believe you believe that. But I do not believe that.

Look, Petraeus is often cited as the 'resident expert' on combating guerrilla warfare for the US armed forces. And he probably deserves to be called that. But his own manuals on how to fight such a force, call for far greater troop commitments then we have given the problem, or COULD give the problem, and far longer timelines for success.

There's no doubt that he's going to do the best he can with what he has. But he has nowhere near the conditions that he himself deems necessary for success. So why should anyone actually expect success?

The administrations' analysis isn't to be trusted, because they lie, and have lied, for years, about the state of Iraq. They have continually been wrong in their predictions of political and military progress by the Iraqis. Why should anyone believe them any longer?

I believe you believe that. But I do not believe that.

This administration has been telling us what they believe was/is true. Often what they believed to be true was/is false. The previous administration told us many of the same things this administration believed until shown to be wrong. The Saddam possessed WMD after 1991 allegation is only one example of both administrations believing the same wrong thing.

Until I can read your mind and learn otherwise, I'll continue assuming that you believe the wrong things you say you believe.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not as trusting as you are, sorry.

I don't disagree that the last admin lied a bunch as well. That doesn't excuse it now.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not as trusting as you are, sorry.

I don't disagree that the last admin lied a bunch as well. That doesn't excuse it now.

Cycloptichorn

I do not think the previous administration lied about WMD in Iraq. They believed it just as much as this administration.

However, the previous administration has been proven to have occassionally, knowingly told falsehoods (i.e., lied). :wink:

I'm not as trusting as you are, sorry.

I don't disagree that the last admin lied a bunch as well. That doesn't excuse it now.

Cycloptichorn

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 18:57 Post: 2821920 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, here's a list of 20 Bush lies. Show us 20 lies by other presidents?

http://www.bushlies.net/

What's more, the same article (in the 30th paragraph) added this gem:

The senior administration official said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

So, when preparing a mandated status report in July, the administration openly considered and discussed the merits of lying to Congress. This apparently made some officials "uncomfortable."

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not as trusting as you are, sorry.

I don't disagree that the last admin lied a bunch as well. That doesn't excuse it now.

Cycloptichorn

I do not think the previous administration lied about WMD in Iraq. They believed it just as much as this administration.

However, the previous administration has been proven to have occassionally, knowingly told falsehoods (i.e., lied). :wink:

The current administration has also been proven to have occasionally lied. Yet, you trust them. Why?

So far as I know, no jury or judge has convicted George Bush or any other member of his administration except Scooter Libby of lying. But a jury/judge did convict Bill Clinton of lying and Sandy Berger of lying and stealing.

When it comes to the Iraq war, there's no doubt whatsoever that the admin - and it's various components - have been far less then truthful, to say the least.

Scooter Libby's lie had nothing to do with the Iraq war.

Cycloptichorn

Just look at the latest incident with those in administration debating whether to lie to congress [DEBATING WHETHER TO LIE TO CONGRESS IS NOT DECIDING TO LIE] about the oil revenue. That tells you a bunch right there.

Quote:

What's more, the same article (in the 30th paragraph) added this gem:

The senior administration official [SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ?? WHO THE HELL IS THAT ??] said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."[DEBATES OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES SATISFACTORY PROGRESS IS NOT LYING AND CERTAINLY IS NOT DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT TO LIE !!]

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials [SOME OFFICIALS ?? WHO THE HELL ARE THEY ??] urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

So, when preparing a mandated status report in July, the administration openly considered and discussed the merits of lying to Congress. [THEY DEBATED WHAT WAS TRUE AND WHAT WAS FALSE. THAT'S NOT LYING!] This apparently made some officials "uncomfortable."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12548.html


I mean anyone who still believes in this administration when it comes to important things like life and death in Iraq and our government; just has willfully buried their head in the sand out of misplaced partsian loyality. I admit I have always been against this administration and was against this war (though not the Afghanistan war) but this administration has made it easy to prove how terrible they are in everything.

revel wrote:

Just look at the latest incident with those in administration debating whether to lie to congress [DEBATING WHETHER TO LIE TO CONGRESS IS NOT DECIDING TO LIE] about the oil revenue. That tells you a bunch right there.

Quote:

What's more, the same article (in the 30th paragraph) added this gem:

The senior administration official [SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ?? WHO THE HELL IS THAT ??] said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."[DEBATES OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES SATISFACTORY PROGRESS IS NOT LYING AND CERTAINLY IS NOT DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT TO LIE !!]

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials [SOME OFFICIALS ?? WHO THE HELL ARE THEY ??] urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

So, when preparing a mandated status report in July, the administration openly considered and discussed the merits of lying to Congress. [THEY DEBATED WHAT WAS TRUE AND WHAT WAS FALSE. THAT'S NOT LYING!] This apparently made some officials "uncomfortable."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12548.html


I mean anyone who still believes in this administration when it comes to important things like life and death in Iraq and our government; just has willfully buried their head in the sand out of misplaced partsian loyality. I admit I have always been against this administration and was against this war (though not the Afghanistan war) but this administration has made it easy to prove how terrible they are in everything.

Tell me please revel, how shall we determine that this "carpetbaggerreport" is not simply more malarkey by Bush-hating-media? How shall we determine that it is not you and people like you who have not "willfully buried their head in the sand out of misplaced partsian loyality?"

I recommend that you reserve your judgment until the actual report comes out. Who or what could that hurt?

Q: Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

CHENEY: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni.

Cheney and Iraq/al Qaeda Connection.

Cheney's statement is a lie. Here's precisely what the Senate Intelligence Committee found:report link

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]

...

Cheney's Continued Assertion of an Iraq/al-Qaeda Connection

Quote:

Q: Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

I agree that there was not a direct connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq established before 9/11. I do not agree that there was not a direct connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq established after 9/11, after our invasion of Afghanistan, and before the US invasion of Iraq. I have repeatedly posted the undeniable evidence of the latter statement.

CHENEY: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni.

I agree with Chenney's statement not because he said it, but because I possess evidence that supports what Chenney said that is independent of what anyone in the Bush administration, including Cheney, has said.

Cheney and Iraq/al Qaeda Connection.

Cheney's statement is a lie. Here's precisely what the Senate Intelligence Committee found:report link

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]

This statement is about whether or not there was an effort made by Saddam to locate and capture Zarqawi before the US invaded Iraq. I tend to agree with this statement. I think it is probably true. However, this statement has nothing to do with whether or not al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded Iraq. It was! I possess the evidence that supports this as well.

Also this statement has nothing to do with whether after the US invasion of Iraq, the sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni. It has! I possess the evidence that supports this as well.

Did the US invasion cause al-Qaeda to kill or instigate the killing of their fellow Muslims? No of course not. Al-Qaeda caused al-Qaeda to instigate the killing of their fellow Muslims ... probably to regain their sanctuary in Iraq.

"If you ask me nicely", I shall happily post here again--for the nth time-- any or all the evidence I claimed here that I possess.

source

For further reading try readingHere.

It is a comprehensive detailed backed up with links and sources list of all the distortions uttered by the administration and Pentagon in the lead up to the war and early days. There is simply no reason for any sane logical person to trust anything to they have a hand in putting out such as the coming September report. They're the one who will be in charge of framing the debate at congress since they are the ones to write the report to congress. If congress only has access to what the Bush administration tells them, that is all they can ask Perateus at the appointed time. And the administration are known proven liars. So the whole thing is bogus.

All those links I've encountered make the same outrageous logical errors:

(1) they conclude al-Qaeda was not in Iraq after 9/11 because it was not in Iraq before 9/11;

(2) they conclude al-Qaeda has not contributed to mass murder horrors in Iraq after the US invaded Iraq, because al-Qaeda did not contribute to mass murder horrors in Iraq before we invaded Iraq.

(3) the US invasion caused al-Qaeda to contribute to the mass murder horrors in Iraq after we invaded Iraq.

It amazes me that anyone can be gullible enough to actually believe these logical falacies are true.

{Nancy wears a rain coat every time it rains.
Nancy is wearing a raincoat.
Therefore it is raining ...
and Nancy better damn well take off her raincoat to stop the flooding due to tthe rain her wearing of that raincoat is causing.}

Ridiculous? Sure! And the numbered arguments are just as rediculous!

So was Clinton, yes we know that; but the difference is that Clinton was lying about sexual matters and the Bush administration lies (or distorts however you want to phrase it) about life and death and government matters which any normal person can reasonably see the difference. You guys here in the wee small numbers defending this administration; ain't normal.

I do not aspire to that which you apparently consider normal.

Clinton was convicted of lying about sexual matters. Sandi Berger was convicted of stealing matters. Scooter Libby was convicted of memory matters. Except for some subsequently convicted military personnel, no one else in the Bush administration has been convicted of anything.

I've come to the conclusion that those accusing Bush or his administration of lying are themselves either lying or are fools.

Scooter Libby was convicted of memory matters.

I've come to the conclusion that those accusing Bush or his administration of lying are themselves either lying or are fools.

I agree that there was not a direct connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq established before 9/11. I do not agree that there was not a direct connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq established after 9/11, after our invasion of Afghanistan, and before the US invasion of Iraq. I have repeatedly posted the undeniable evidence of the latter statement.

A two-page resume of the report was published in February, but on Friday (local time) the Pentagon declassified the whole 120-page document.

According to the inspector general of the US Defense Department, information obtained after Saddam's fall confirmed the pre-war position of the Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon intelligence that the Iraqi Government had had no substantial contacts with Al Qaeda.

This position was shored up by interrogations of Saddam, the former Iraqi president and other top officials captured by the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, the report said.

I agree with Chenney's statement not because he said it, but because I possess evidence that supports what Chenney said that is independent of what anyone in the Bush administration, including Cheney, has said.

This statement is about whether or not there was an effort made by Saddam to locate and capture Zarqawi before the US invaded Iraq. I tend to agree with this statement. I think it is probably true. However, this statement has nothing to do with whether or not al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded Iraq. It was! I possess the evidence that supports this as well.

Also this statement has nothing to do with whether after the US invasion of Iraq, the sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni. It has! I possess the evidence that supports this as well.

Did the US invasion cause al-Qaeda to kill or instigate the killing of their fellow Muslims? No of course not. Al-Qaeda caused al-Qaeda to instigate the killing of their fellow Muslims ... probably to regain their sanctuary in Iraq.

"If you ask me nicely", I shall happily post here again--for the nth time-- any or all the evidence I claimed here that I possess.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.

But for the first time, exasperated front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic governmental alternatives, and while the two top U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country's nascent democratic institutions, they say their ambitions aren't as "lofty" as they once had been.

"Democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future," said Brig. Gen. John "Mick" Bednarek, part of Task Force Lightning in Diyala province, one of the war's major battlegrounds.

The comments reflect a practicality common among Western diplomats and officials trying to win hearts and minds in the Middle East and other non-Western countries where democracy isn't a tradition.

The failure of Iraq to emerge from widespread instability is a bitter pill for the United States, which optimistically toppled the Saddam Hussein regime more than four years ago. Millions of Iraqis went to the polls to cast ballots, something that generated great promise for the establishment of a democratic system.

But Iraqi institutions, from the infrastructure to the national government, are widely regarded as ineffective in the fifth year of the war.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, declined to be interviewed for this story, but they issued a joint statement to CNN that reiterated that the country's "fundamental democratic framework is in place" and that "the development of democratic institutions is being encouraged."

And, they said, they are helping Iraqi political leaders find ways "to share power and achieve legislative progress."

But Crocker and Petraeus conceded they are "now engaged in pursuing less lofty and ambitious goals than was the case at the outset."

Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Task Force Lightning, also reflected a less lofty American goal for Iraq's future.

"I would describe it as leaving an effective government behind that can provide services to its people, and security. It needs to be an effective and functioning government that is really a partner with the United States and the rest of the world in this fight against the terrorists," said Mixon, who will not be perturbed if such goals are reached without democracy.

"Well, see that all over the Middle East," he said, stating that democracy is merely an option, that Iraqis are free to choose or reject.

"But that is the $50,000 question. ... What will this government look like? Will it be a democracy? Will it not?" he asked.

Soldiers, he said, are fighting for security, a goal Mixon described as "core to my mission."

But security is far from complete in Iraq, where the government seems dysfunctional and paralyzed.

Seventeen of the 37 Iraqi Cabinet ministers either boycott or don't attend Cabinet meetings. Parliament, now on a much-criticized month-long summer break, has yet to pass key legislation in the areas of energy resource sharing and the future roles of former members of Hussein's Baath Party. U.S. officials, including President Bush, have said there is frustration with efforts by the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to promote political reconciliation.

The government is unable to supply regular electricity and at times running water in the capital.

The health care system is run by one Iranian-backed militia and the national police are dominated by another. Death squads terrorize Sunni neighborhoods.

Sectarian cleansing is pushing people into segregated enclaves, protected by Shiite or U.S.-backed Sunni militias, and spurring the flight of thousands to neighboring countries.

Thousands of innocents are dying violently every month in cities and villages across the country.

Iraqi government officials concede things aren't working, but they say that's because the United States doesn't allow Iraq to really control its own destiny.

While the Iraqi government commands its own troops, it cannot send them into battle without U.S. agreement. Iraqi Special Forces answer only to U.S. officers.

"We don't have full sovereignty," said Hadi al-Amri, the chairman of parliament's Defense and Security Committee. "We don't have sovereignty over our troops, we don't have sovereignty over our provinces. We admit it."

And because of the very real prospect of Iranian infiltration, the government doesn't fund or control its own intelligence service. It's paid for and run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Abdul Qarim al-Enzi, director of the parliamentary ethics committee, asks whether it is "reasonable for a country given sovereignty by the international community to have a chief of intelligence appointed by another country."


One senior U.S. official in Baghdad told CNN that "any country with 160,000 foreigners fighting for it sacrifices some sovereignty."

The U.S. government has long cautioned that a fully functioning democracy would be slow to emerge in Iraq. But with key U.S. senators calling for al-Maliki's removal, some senior U.S. military commanders even suggest privately the entire Iraqi government must be removed by "constitutional or non-constitutional" means and replaced with a stable, secure, but not necessarily democratic entity.

In response to This Post
...