Iraq: The worst mistake in American History....or was it?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i dont think congress ever declared war, am i wrong?

I think congress gave Bush permission to declare war if it was needed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i dont think congress ever declared war, am i wrong?

no, they just named in chancellor.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

Prove it.


Nothing has been documented about Bush 'lying'......except for those 'insiders'....who suddenly come out and write books telling the whole world how Bush forced the intelligence community to generate evidence that would prove Saddam had WMD. Yet, the real sources....those who investigated the WHOLE fiasco, never said anything about that.

So who are we going to believe? Insiders who take advantage of popular opinion and write books? Or a Senate Intelligence Committee who gathered ALL the evidence available and came to a different conclusion?

But you admit that 'insiders' have documented Bush's lies then turn around and wipe that out with one broad brush stroke. How can you do that?

If the 'insiders' lied why hasn't Bush sued or prosecuted them? The White House barely voiced a denial!

I think you are the ONLY person on this Board who doesn't acknowledge that Bush and his Administration manipulated the 'intelligence'. Even most his his staunchest defenders admit that much.

Guess that makes you smarter than everyone here.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

But you admit that 'insiders' have documented Bush's lies then turn around and wipe that out with one broad brush stroke. How can you do that?

If the 'insiders' lied why hasn't Bush sued or prosecuted them? The White House barely voiced a denial!

I think you are the ONLY person on this Board who doesn't acknowledge that Bush and his Administration manipulated the 'intelligence'. Even most his his staunchest defenders admit that much.

Guess that makes you smarter than everyone here.

People see what they want to see.. sadly

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

Prove it.

Prove it that he intentionally lied, and fabricated evidence leading up to the Iraq War.

Prove that he and his cronies cooked intelligence reports. Prove it.

Your logic makes no sense. If Bush was lying from the start, why wouldn't he send in a black-ops team and plant WMD in Iraq? That way he can justify his war...Cheney can justify making millions....public support for the war would probably still be up at 40-50%....and nobody could in theory say he 'lied.' I mean, if the guy is such a crony, and Cheney is so greedy, why wouldn't they make sure all those ends were covered?

Its funny really. Seems like its popular to say that Bush lied....the whole world believes it already because of the 'spin' the media has used to turn 'intelligence failure' into 'Bush lied - people died.'

Yet, every single report dedicated to finding out that exact so-called 'lie'...has ONLY talked about a massive intelligence failure.

Nothing has been documented about Bush 'lying'......except for those 'insiders'....who suddenly come out and write books telling the whole world how Bush forced the intelligence community to generate evidence that would prove Saddam had WMD. Yet, the real sources....those who investigated the WHOLE fiasco, never said anything about that.

So who are we going to believe? Insiders who take advantage of popular opinion and write books? Or a Senate Intelligence Committee who gathered ALL the evidence available and came to a different conclusion?

Lying is a pretty big demeanor...and by theory, it should be sufficient groups to impeach a President. If Bush did lie....don't you think the Democrats would push the impeachment process? There is a reason the majority of them are staying away from that. And I firmly believe it is because they failed the American people as well.

But hey, lets elect Clinton. I'm sure she'll change her stance a couple millions times before the primaries are even over.

'I supported it.....'

'Obama didn't support it...therefore he appeased Saddam...'

Well Azure, I have read the Senate intelligence report on WMDs in Iraq, and yes, Curveball and the Yellowcake Uranium were intelligence failures - BUT - the thing you have to remember is that these were gross miscalcuations, bordering on criminal negligence. The Yellowcake documents in Niger were considered to be "obvious fakes" according to just about any independant source who reviewed them, including Hans Blix, prior to the outbreak of war in Iraq. Curveball was considered to be a very sketchy subject, based on the foriegn intelligence service (was it the Germans?) who captured him. Who even warned the Americans to stay as far away from him as possible, and not believe a word he says.

Now, with Intelligence, there is some stuff that is conjecture, I can provide you sources if you like - you wont find much talk about curveball in the Senate report - but you will find what I mentioned about Yellowcake in there.

The question you have to ask yourself is why the CIA was pushing this intelligence - this is arguably the best intelligence agency in the world - when there was so much doubt about it in the world community?

Based on what I've read - none of the Iraq intel should have been pushed up the line, and it was criminal to do so. So the question remains is why was this obvious bad intel pushed up the chain of command to the highest levels? My personal opinion is that Bush Jr wanted a rationale to invade Iraq, so they found a bunch of sketchy intel to support it. I also think that Bush and most of congress believed Saddam probably had WMDs - but nothing concrete to prove it.

*edit*

And just curious, how exactly do you manage a blackops that plants the means of production of Nukes? This isn't like building a pipe bomb here, there has to be some seriously extensive equipment, not to mention, once you start getting a lot of people involved, the web of secrecy diminishes greatly.

[Dion]

Sen. Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Sen. Graham requested that the Bush administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the administration, by cherrypicking evidence only to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

http://hnn.us/articles/1506.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dion

How long should the US stay there?

Until the Iraqi Government is capable of running the country itself.

They are making progress...despite what the media keeps telling you.

Especially since the surge.

Many lives will it take before someone comes to their senses

Many more people will die if they suddenly pull out.

2-3 'million' were killed in Vietnam when the US left.

Do you think the civil war is going to end anytime soon?

There is no civil war.

Persoanly i think the US govt is going to have to admit defeat and pull out of Iraq sooner than later. I don't see them winning this civil war.

Again, there is no civil war.

Plus, why should the US government admit defeat in spite of a surge that has dropped casualties as much as 60%?

Instead of reading about the daily suicide bombings....start looking at the infrastructure progress being made each day.

Even the UN is praising what the Iraqi government has done in the past 6 months.

Meanwhile, the United Nations also took note of progress in Iraq last week. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon gave his report to the U.N. Security Council, calling "the reduction in the overall number of attacks reported across Iraq a welcome development."

Soldiers are doing double duty while others aren't allowed to retire.

Yes, and some are volunteering to go back a 3rd time.

People are on to Bush and all and aren't enlisting like they used to.

No doubt.

On to Bush? Why, because he lied? Prove it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i dont think congress ever declared war, am i wrong?

No, they authorized military engagements in Iraq, just like they did in the first Gulf War and in Afghanistan.

There have only been 5 formal declarations of war by the United States Congress.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well you can't conduct a war and foreign policy based on a lie, which Bush seems determined to do. It's time to take your hand out of the fire and start treating it. Whether that involves doing a quick or slow withdrawal, I'm not sure what the next president will do, but they have to remove the people profiting from this war. Those profiting have no wish to end this war and that includes politicians and media as well as the usual suspects in the military industrial complex. Who knows in some convoluted way, they're so corrupt they may even be propping up these terrorists. They're getting their arms from some where. They certainly haven't come close to getting Osama bin Laden and when you consider his families close ties to Bush's family, well I won't ask you to connect the dots because that isn't your forte.

What lie? Prove that he lied.

In regards to the profiting....war is always a profitable business. Always will be.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

But you admit that 'insiders' have documented Bush's lies then turn around and wipe that out with one broad brush stroke. How can you do that?

I really don't care what these 'insiders' have to say.

I read the Senate Report...and I'll take their word over what an 'insider' said any day of the week.

I think you are the ONLY person on this Board who doesn't acknowledge that Bush and his Administration manipulated the 'intelligence'. Even most his his staunchest defenders admit that much.

There is a difference in manipulating evidence...and flat-out lying about it.

Guess that makes you smarter than everyone here.

No, it just makes me unpopular because it seems to popular to saying that Bush lied about everything.

Easy way out I suppose.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well Azure, I have read the Senate intelligence report on WMDs in Iraq, and yes, Curveball and the Yellowcake Uranium were intelligence failures - BUT - the thing you have to remember is that these were gross miscalcuations, bordering on criminal negligence. The Yellowcake documents in Niger were considered to be "obvious fakes" according to just about any independant source who reviewed them, including Hans Blix, prior to the outbreak of war in Iraq. Curveball was considered to be a very sketchy subject, based on the foriegn intelligence service (was it the Germans?) who captured him. Who even warned the Americans to stay as far away from him as possible, and not believe a word he says.

Somehow I doubt that all the intelligence the US used to justify invading Iraq has been released to the public.

But you are right, both of them situations turned out to be a pretty big failure. Yet, like I said before, when your intelligence czar comes to you with this evidence and tells you its a 'slam dunk' case...what would you do?

Now, with Intelligence, there is some stuff that is conjecture, I can provide you sources if you like - you wont find much talk about curveball in the Senate report - but you will find what I mentioned about Yellowcake in there.

I'm sure I've read just about everything about Curveall and Niger. And I doubt we disagree on anything. All I'm saying is that its easy for me and you to look back and talk about the failures, how some of the evidence 'might' have been manipulated, but its not that easy for Bush to do.

The question you have to ask yourself is why the CIA was pushing this intelligence - this is arguably the best intelligence agency in the world - when there was so much doubt about it in the world community?

You tell me. Not only was the CIA pushing it, but arguably every single other intelligence agency in the US agreed with them.

My personal opinion is that Bush Jr wanted a rationale to invade Iraq, so they found a bunch of sketchy intel to support it. I also think that Bush and most of congress believed Saddam probably had WMDs - but nothing concrete to prove it.

Of course.

And my personal opinion is that like the rest of Congress, including ALL of the Democrats(Obama too)....Bush believed Saddam had WMD, and therefore he posed a threat to the US.

I just find it strange that the complete US government, Democrats and Republicans alike were 'manipulated'...strangely enough, by this evidence that Bush supposedly 'lied' about.

Even stranger is the fact that before Bush even came into office, the US government was already saying that Saddam possessed WMD.

And just curious, how exactly do you manage a blackops that plants the means of production of Nukes? This isn't like building a pipe bomb here, there has to be some seriously extensive equipment, not to mention, once you start getting a lot of people involved, the web of secrecy diminishes greatly.

It doesn't even have to be anything nuclear.

Nobody would have cried foul play had the US simply found chemical or biological agents in Iraq.

And I doubt the US, with all their resources would have had any problem planting that evidence, had Bush really 'lied.'

I mean, if I was going to war knowing that most of my intelligence was cooked, the least I would have done is cover my bases.

[jammies]

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

Ok, here's one lie for you Azure - the truth would have been "A source previously discredited by our intelligence services has managed to sell his ridiculous story to the Brits. However, since his story is useful, it now behooves me to pretend to believe it."

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

Here's another one - the truth would have been "We have absolutely no evidence for links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and furthermore there is considerable evidence that the Iraqi government is actively opposed to their operations as it is perceived as a threat to Saddam's authority."

It is obvious that what he asked for was evidence to support what he had already decided to do, and that this is what inflated dubious guesses into "facts" that were presented to him. As President, it is HIS responsibility to ensure he is not taking his nation into war unless it is justified, and whether these were knowing or unknowing lies is irrelevant, it was his actions that led to the lies being manufactured, and his voice that spoke them.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

...

Based on what I've read - none of the Iraq intel should have been pushed up the line, and it was criminal to do so. So the question remains is why was this obvious bad intel pushed up the chain of command to the highest levels? My personal opinion is that Bush Jr wanted a rationale to invade Iraq, so they found a bunch of sketchy intel to support it. I also think that Bush and most of congress believed Saddam probably had WMDs - but nothing concrete to prove it.
...

I heard a very interesting interview yesterday. The man speaking was a reporter, he had daily contact with Saddam for almost 2 years, while Saddam was in American hands after his capture, prior to his being turned over to Iraqi control. It sounded like he talked with Saddam for several hours every day while he was in American captivity.

He asked Saddam specifically about WMD and Saddam told him this. Most WMD had been inactivated or destroyed as per the mandate of the United Nations inspections. However, he kept enough of a semblance of WMD so that the Irani would not invade. And this reporter claims that Saddam said that he had plans to completely rebuild WMD, nuclear and chemical and biological.

On the final day of his contact with Saddam, he asked him if he had any regrets. Saddam told him no. He was 67 years old, he had lived far longer than many Iraqi men his age, he had become leader of his country, he believed he had initiated many programs in his country to improve Iraq. As a final farewell gesture, he kissed the reporter in Iraqi style, 3 times on the cheek, left, right, left. And told him he would see him again.

And the reporter never saw him again once Saddam was turned over to Iraqi police. The reporter did say however, that in the end, on his final day of execution, Saddam refused to put on the black hood and wanted his killers to look him straight in the eye upon execution.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nobody would have cried foul play had the US simply found chemical or biological agents in Iraq.

And I doubt the US, with all their resources would have had any problem planting that evidence, had Bush really 'lied.'

I mean, if I was going to war knowing that most of my intelligence was cooked, the least I would have done is cover my bases.

Not true.

WMDs have always been the secondary reason for the invasion, with the first being the "Iraq/Al Queda connection"/"Iraq/911", which has never been proven.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

Ok, here's one lie for you Azure - the truth would have been "A source previously discredited by our intelligence services has managed to sell his ridiculous story to the Brits. However, since his story is useful, it now behooves me to pretend to believe it."

The Brits still stand by that story.

Quite the lie, huh?

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

Here's another one - the truth would have been "We have absolutely no evidence for links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and furthermore there is considerable evidence that the Iraqi government is actively opposed to their operations as it is perceived as a threat to Saddam's authority."

Right.

The Bush administration view, as defined by the Colin Powell speech before the UN, postulated that there might have been a cooperative relationship, but that Saddam was not supportive of the 9/11 attacks. Powell presented several credible intelligence reports vetted by the Intelligence Community showing contacts between Iraq's Intelligence Service and al-Qaeda. Powell pointed out that Saddam had already supported Islamic Jihad, a radical Islamist group and that there was no reason for him not to support al-Qaeda. Powell discussed concerns that Saddam may provide al-Qaeda with chemical or biological weapons.

It is obvious that what he asked for was evidence to support what he had already decided to do, and that this is what inflated dubious guesses into "facts" that were presented to him. As President, it is HIS responsibility to ensure he is not taking his nation into war unless it is justified, and whether these were knowing or unknowing lies is irrelevant, it was his actions that led to the lies being manufactured, and his voice that spoke them.

Still haven't proven any of this to be a lie.

The British still stand by their original claim, and the intelligence community provided Bush with the link between Saddam and Al Queda.

I guess if you believe that Bush forced all those agencies to manufacture evidence that would show such a link, you have a point.

Problem is, NOTHING has ever been said about Bush doing that. Perhaps he did manipulate it, and he certainly did make a rash decision about going to war, but again I stress that if my intelligence people came to me with evidence that Iraq had WMD, and that there was a 'credible' link between Saddam and Al Queda....knowing that Al Queda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, I would have invaded Iraq as well.

Plus, we're basing our opinion on declassified reports released by the US government. How many more of those reports about the intelligence leading up to the war are still classified?

In other words, there is probably a lot we do not know.

Also, due to massive cuts made by Clinton during the 90's.....the CIA had no boots on the ground collecting 'proper' intelligence. Much of what they received came from foreign intelligence services, including the Mossad in Israel. Chances are the saw an opportunity to get rid of Saddam, and fed the CIA and other agencies with intelligence that would provide such a link.

In February 2007, the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's Office of Special Plans, an office in the Pentagon run by Douglas Feith that was the source of most of the misleading intelligence on al-Qaeda and Iraq, had "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."

Lies, all lies!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Not true.

WMDs have always been the secondary reason for the invasion, with the first being the "Iraq/Al Queda connection"/"Iraq/911", which has never been proven.

It has apparently been disproven.

Yet, if Bush really did manufacture all the evidence on Iraq.....I'm sure he could have used his resources at hand and made sure that a link did exist between Saddam and Al Queda. Not that hard given he is the most powerful man in the world.

I mean, if he intentionally lied and all.

[chris lindberg]

The Bush family has quite the history with starting War, his grandfather or great grandfather had something to do with WW1 OR WW11?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by redforever

He asked Saddam specifically about WMD and Saddam told him this. Most WMD had been inactivated or destroyed as per the mandate of the United Nations inspections. However, he kept enough of a semblance of WMD so that the Irani would not invade.

There is some semblance of truth to that....I think the FBI agent that interrogated him came to the same conclusion.

And this reporter claims that Saddam said that he had plans to completely rebuild WMD, nuclear and chemical and biological.

Interesting....I don't know how true that is, but its interesting nonetheless.

[Dion]

In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak political institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration's political objective in Iraq -- creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops -- is unrealistic. Given this unrealistic political objective, military strategy of any sort is doomed to fail almost regardless of whether the administration goes with the "surge" option, as President George W. Bush has proposed, or shifts toward a pure training mission, as advised by the Iraq Study Group.

Even if an increase in the number of U.S. combat troops reduces violence in Baghdad and so buys time for negotiations on power sharing in the current Iraqi government, there is no good reason to expect that subsequent reductions would not revive the violent power struggle. Civil wars are rarely ended by stable power-sharing agreements. When they are, it typically takes combatants who are not highly factionalized and years of fighting to clarify the balance of power. Neither condition is satisfied by Iraq at present. Factionalism among the Sunnis and the es approaches levels seen in Somalia, and multiple armed groups on both sides appear to believe that they could wrest control of the government if U.S. forces left. Such beliefs will not change quickly while large numbers of U.S. troops remain.

What happened in Lebanon in 1975-76 may offer better insights into what is likely to happen in Iraq. As violence between Christian militias and Palestine Liberation Organization factions started to escalate in 1975, the Lebanese army leadership initially stayed out of the conflict, realizing that the army would splinter if it tried to intervene. But as the violence escalated, the army eventually did intervene -- and broke apart. Lebanon then entered a long period of conflict during which an array of Christian, Sunni, e, and PLO militias fought one another off and on (as much within sectarian groups as between them). Syrian and Israeli military involvement sometimes reduced and sometimes escalated the violence. Alliances shifted, often in surprising ways. The Syrians, for example, initially sided with the Christians against the PLO.

A similar scenario is already playing out in Iraq. Whether U.S. forces stay or go, Iraq south of the Kurdish areas will probably look more and more like Lebanon during its long civil war. Effective political authority will devolve to regions, cities, and even neighborhoods. After a period of ethnic cleansing and fighting to draw lines, an equilibrium with lower-level, more intermittent sectarian violence will set in, punctuated by larger campaigns financed and aided by foreign powers. Violence and exploitation within sects will most likely worsen, as the neighborhood militias and gangs that carried out the ethnic cleansing increasingly fight among themselves over turf, protection rackets, and trade. As in Lebanon, there will probably be a good deal of intervention by neighboring states -- especially Iran -- but it will not necessarily bring them great strategic gains. To the contrary, it may bring them a great deal of grief, just as it has the United States.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200703...civil-war.html

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

The Brits still stand by that story.

Quite the lie, huh?

Right.

Uh huh. The point isn't what the British claimed, or claim now, but that the Americans didn't believe them yet STILL included it in the speech. Is it not a lie when you knowingly claim something on someone else's authority when you know it to be false from your own investigation?

See this link

Originally Posted by Azure

The Bush administration view, as defined by the Colin Powell speech before the UN, postulated that there might have been a cooperative relationship, but that Saddam was not supportive of the 9/11 attacks. Powell presented several credible intelligence reports vetted by the Intelligence Community showing contacts between Iraq's Intelligence Service and al-Qaeda. Powell pointed out that Saddam had already supported Islamic Jihad, a radical Islamist group and that there was no reason for him not to support al-Qaeda. Powell discussed concerns that Saddam may provide al-Qaeda with chemical or biological weapons.

The official September 11th commission concluded that there were no links between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi gov't, and no real evidence to make anyone ever think so. See this link for confirmation. The whole thing was concocted because of some interrogation evidence from an Iraqi defector who said he "heard" about connections at second hand. That's like me saying "oh yah man, Xenu is DEFINITELY coming to enslave us all" because Tom Cruise said so.

It's debatable whether Bush purposely lied or not, but an unwitting lie is no more excusable anyway - when you are talking about starting a war, killing hundreds of thousands of people and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you have to be accountable if the premises you did all this upon turn out to be completely wrong.

There was no WMD, there were no ties with al-Qaeda, and Iraq was not a threat to the USA - and has Bush stood up and said, "I was wrong all along, I was misled, I acted without making sure I was doing the right thing"? No, he has not. Unlike Truman, who had "The Buck Stops Here" on his desk, Bush's motto is "Pointing out My Mistakes is Letting the Terrorists Win".