ican711nm wrote:xingu wrote:More lies that got us into Iraq.
Quote:September 3, 2007
Fake Photos Helped Lead US to War in Iraq
The News Drones
By WALTER BRASCH
Add faked photos to the list of lies told by the BushCheney Administration before its invasion of Iraq.
In a town hall meeting in Bloomsburg, Pa. this week, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a 12-term congressman, said that shortly before Congress was scheduled to vote on authorizing military force against Iraq, top officials of the CIA showed select members of Congress three photographs it alleged were Iraqi Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), better known as drones. Kanjorski said he was told that the drones were capable of carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical agents, and could strike 1,000 miles inland of east coast or west coast cities.
Kanjorski said he and four or five other congressmen in the room were told UAVs could be on freighters headed to the U.S. Both secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and President Bush wandered into and out of the briefing room, Kanjorski said.
...
It is self-evident that the portions of this article I emphasized show this article to be a fake. Colin Powell,
not Condoleezza Rice, was secretary of state at the time--October 16, 2002--Congress voted on authorizing military force against Iraq.
Brilliant ican. A trivial error and now you can claim the entire article a lie.
You'll grasp at any straw, won't you.
BTW, you seem to miss the point of this article. Congress voted on authorizing force on Iraq because they thought Bush was an honorable man and would tell them the truth. It turns out he was not honorable. He was a liar and used lies, half-truths and faked intelligence to paint a false picture for Congress. Any lie to achieve your ends.
Xingu; I don't mean to butt in and give to the other side :wink: but congress had information out there they could have dug for had they bothered; including democrat congress. They could have simply read inspection report from UN for starters. But like the rest of the nation at the time; they were not questioning Bush at the time.
Well, I have been a thread hog so I will stay off for awhile.
revel, We really can't blame congress for trusting the president, but it's a hard lesson learned. When in the history of the US was congress ever lied to?
revel wrote:Xingu; I don't mean to butt in and give to the other side :wink: but congress had information out there they could have dug for had they bothered; including democrat congress. They could have simply read inspection report from UN for starters. But like the rest of the nation at the time; they were not questioning Bush at the time.
Well, I have been a thread hog so I will stay off for awhile.
I agree that Congress showed a lack of moral courage just as our generals did in Iraq. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Bush lied and used 9/11 to get us to invade Iraq.
Moral courage seems to be the one thing American leaders lack. If our leaders can't find any moral courage perhaps we should delete the line "Home of the Brave" from our national anthem.
Actually, Bush did not have authority to invade Iraq. There were conditions set by congress before war was authorized. Bush never met any of those conditions.
Then why did Congress let him get away with it? Why didn't they tell him he did not have the authority?
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
Many Iraqis are skeptical about George W. Bush's claim that the U.S. is a friend to the Iraqi people. CNN's Jane Arraf reports (October 9)
FACT BOX
"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,."
There was never any threat posed by Iraq against the US. They didn't have any WMDs or missiles to deliver them. The Iraqis were controlled by the "no fly zone" and we had UN inspectors looking for WMDs.
and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Bush could not get UN approval for his war, so he called the UN irrelevant.
The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.
The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."
"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.
The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.
The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.
Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mullah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.
The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.
Resolution sharply divides Democrats
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."
Daschle had expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution last week.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.
Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution.
"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."
But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal.
"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.
In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.
"All across this land Americans are insisting on a peaceful resolution of matters in Iraq," he said. "All across this land, Americans are looking towards the United States to be a nation among nations, working through the United Nations to help resolve this crisis."
I wonder how many members of Congress are kicking themselves in the ass for voting for that resolution?
revel wrote:ican711nm wrote:
Juan Cole's claim that the benchmarks met are trivial, would have been more credible if he had stated those alleged trivial benchmarks that were met and then said
why he thinks them trivial.
...
...
The source in the embedded link on Jaun coles article
Quote:Iraq 'fails to meet key targets'
Iraq has managed to reach only three out of 18 progress benchmarks set by the US, a draft of a key report seen by the Washington Post newspaper says.
...
Quote:The Iraq Progress Report
In the security category, progress on three of eight benchmarks were marked satisfactory. The satisfactory categories were providing Iraqi brigades for the surge, setting up joint security stations with the Americans and reducing the level of sectarian violence.
...
Of nine benchmarks on the political front, only four were found satisfactory, and those were hardly significant achievements.
For example, a "review committee" was formed and "legislation on procedures" was implemented.
...
The one satisfactory economic benchmark involved the allocation of funds, but the money has yet to be spent so the Iraqi people have not seen the results.
...
source
...
Juan Cole did not say
why any of these were thought by him or any of his sources to be "trivial" or "hardly significant":
providing Iraqi brigades for the surge
setting up joint security stations with the Americans
reducing the level of sectarian violence.
a "review committee" was formed
"legislation on procedures" was implemented
plus two others not mentioned
allocation of funds
xingu wrote:
...
Congress voted on authorizing force on Iraq because they thought Bush was an honorable man and would tell them the truth. It turns out he was not honorable. He was a liar and used lies, half-truths and faked intelligence to paint a false picture for Congress. Any lie to achieve your ends.
Congress voted October 16, 2002 to authorize the use of force on Iraq based on 23 reasons (i.e., whereases). Of these, 13 proved subsequently to be true. Two of those subsequently proven true reasons was individually sufficient to justify the use of force on Iraq.
Congress wrote:
Congress's Joint Resolution 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.
...
[10th]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;
[11th]Whereas
Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...
Quote:
"The one satisfactory economic benchmark involved the allocation of funds, but the money has yet to be spent so the Iraqi people have not seen the results." /Unquote.
The Iraqis hasn't seen any of the results because billions are not accounted for and missing. Another Bush operation run by incompetent people selected by the boss himself.
Ah ican, the AQ in Iraq were outside the control of SH, but not GB. You know that. GB refused to attack them. GB could have easily destroyed them. GB didn't destroy them. GB was protecting AQ in Iraq.
Why ican?
xingu wrote:Ah ican, the AQ in Iraq were outside the control of SH, but not GB. You know that. GB refused to attack them. GB could have easily destroyed them. GB didn't destroy them. GB was protecting AQ in Iraq.
Why ican?
First, GB is incompetent!
Second, it would not have been sufficient to merely attack al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq in order to prevent their subsequent return. Clinton taught us about that in Afghanistan. Keeping al-Qaeda out of Iraq would require replacing SH's government with one competent to protect its own citizens from being murdered by their own government and by others in and outside Iraq.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq were
legally outside the control of SH. That is, SH did
not govern that land where al-Qaeda had established their sanctuary in December 2001 after fleeing from the USA October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. But al-Qaeda was not outside SH's
capability to go into their rapidly growing training camps in northeastern Iraq near Irbil, and do what the USA invited him to do: extradite Zarqawi et al.
In 1996, SH went into Irbil to crush one Kurdish group in Irbil when invited to do so by another Kurdish group.
ican wrote:First, GB is incompetent!
So we went to war because GB is incompetent. I'll buy that.
ican wrote:Second, it would not have been sufficient to merely attack al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq in order to prevent their subsequent return. Clinton taught us about that in Afghanistan. Keeping al-Qaeda out of Iraq would require replacing SH's government with one competent to protect its own citizens from being murdered by their own government and by others in and outside Iraq.
Wrong. AQ had access to most all of a mountainous country ruled primarily by a friend and ally of AQ. Iraq was ruled by a secular leader hated by AQ. SH was not willing to deal with them. He was not a religious fanatic like Omar. Iraq and Afghanistan are not alike and to compare the two is to compare apples to oranges.
ican wrote:Al-Qaeda in Iraq were legally outside the control of SH. That is, SH did not govern that land where al-Qaeda had established their sanctuary in December 2001 after fleeing from the USA October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. But al-Qaeda was not outside SH's capability to go into their rapidly growing training camps in northeastern Iraq near Irbil, and do what the USA invited him to do: extradite Zarqawi et al.
This is mindless drivel. First you say AQ was in an area outside of SH control then you say he was capable of going in there and taking them out.
Make up your mind. If he had no control over the area than he can't go in there and take them out. GB would never allow it. GB needed the AQ base so he could promote his war. Beside SH had no reason to go in there. If GB wasn't going to take them out why should he? How could SH extradite Zarqawi if he had no control over the territory Zarqawi occupied.
BTW, try using a little common sense here. That camp was located a hop and skip from the Iranian border. It was put there for a reason. If anyone sent troops there they would take a very short trip and be in Iran. How do you think SH is going to sneak in a force big enough to take them out without being seen? We could do it because we had helicopters and highly trained soldiers to do jobs like that. SH didn't.
cicerone imposter wrote:Quote:
"The one satisfactory economic benchmark involved the allocation of funds, but the money has yet to be spent so the Iraqi people have not seen the results." /Unquote.
The Iraqis hasn't seen any of the results because billions are not accounted for and missing. Another Bush operation run by incompetent people selected by the boss himself.
How is it the fault of Bush if the Iraqi govt cant account for its finances?
He doesnt control the Iraqi treasury.
mysteryman wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Quote:
"The one satisfactory economic benchmark involved the allocation of funds, but the money has yet to be spent so the Iraqi people have not seen the results." /Unquote.
The Iraqis hasn't seen any of the results because billions are not accounted for and missing. Another Bush operation run by incompetent people selected by the boss himself.
How is it the fault of Bush if the Iraqi govt cant account for its finances?
He doesnt control the Iraqi treasury.
Ever hear of the phrase 'the buck stops here?'
Apparently not, and neither has Bush. It's always someone else's fault with you guys. He's the overseer of the entire reconstruction/rebuilding Iraq effort; who else does the fault lie in, if not the person at the top who is supposed, specifically, to be keeping the enterprise running clean?
Cycloptichorn
The bucks stops.... ha ha. George is already looking furiously for someone to point at... Congress, Bremer (oops, might have to ask for that medal back.),Democrats, anybody.
Bremer is sending messages, actual messages, to reporters proving (?) that he told the White House he was going to disband the army. (Smooth move..
) He should have known that George doesn't really listen or read, he just nods.
Joe(Meanwhile, back in the cave.)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:The bucks stops.... ha ha. George is already looking furiously for someone to point at... Congress, Bremer (oops, might have to ask for that medal back.),Democrats, anybody.
Bremer is sending messages, actual messages, to reporters proving (?) that he told the White House he was going to disband the army. (Smooth move..
) He should have known that George doesn't really listen or read, he just nods.
Joe(Meanwhile, back in the cave.)Nation
But hey, Bush sheds tears over Iraq while spreading death and violence to the four corners of the earth...
