How We Went To War

[Joey Balls]

Gee, I wonder why I didn't get immediately ridiculed or hounded. You know, despite my anti-invasion stance? I wonder if it's because I used actual information and conclusions, rather than terms like "ludicrous right-wing conservative circle jerk love fest"? Or perhaps because occasionally there is actually another side of the coin?

 

Nah, it's gotta be some kind of conspiracy against all you lefty partisan apologists. Right, RichinOhio? What about you, Kurt Godel?

 

At the end of the day, if you're a troll, you go on vacation. It's pretty much that simple. Tell your buddy Buff65 we sure miss him.

 

 

You got it Potsie.

[Joey Balls]

Gee, I wonder why I didn't get immediately ridiculed or hounded? You know, despite my anti-invasion stance? I wonder if it's because I used actual information and conclusions, rather than terms like "ludicrous right-wing conservative circle jerk love fest" which have little to do with discussion. Those things wouldn't be a problem but for whatever reason, you hardcore partisans don't seem to understand that you have to actually build some subject credibility at THIS site before you can toss such terms around.

 

Nah, instead it's gotta be some kind of conspiracy against all you lefty partisan apologists. Right, RichinOhio? What about you, Kurt Godel?

 

At the end of the day, if you're a troll, you go on vacation. It's pretty much that simple. Tell your buddy Buff65 we sure miss him. You wanna contribute, try actually bringing something to the table. You know, more than "my party kicks ass and yours sucks."

 

 

How come you don't miss bishop hedd, apu grape, whiskey dick and about eleven others?

 

 

They sure give their regards Potsie.

[Alaska Darin]

How come you don't miss bishop hedd, apu grape, whiskey dick and about eleven others?

They sure give their regards Potsie.

Stop it, you're crushing my delicate psyche. Potsie? That's a spectacularly good insult from 3 decades ago. What, can't go all the way back to Don Rickles?

 

I guess I could put up some kind of "Troll Memorial" with some of the best of, so you and your buddies can rub and tug to your exploits, pretending all the while that you aren't pathetic, but knowing deep down the truth is the polar opposite. Stay with your movement. It can't possibly fail again. This time it'll work for sure!

[Wacka]

You libs just suck up the distortion that the lame stream media put out in the guise of "news".

 

mg200, show us one credible reference where Bush actually said that Saddam was behind 9-11. What he said was that Iraq was training Ai-Quieda members. They did find several training camps for them.

 

When Bush was on the carrier, I remember Fox news asking someone about the Mission Accomplished banner. They said it was for the carrier crew. The Lincoln crew had their tour doubled in length. They accomplished THEIR mission and were coming home. What I think is that you libs are mad because Bush landed on the carrier and actually looked good in the flight suit, unlike Dukakis looking like Alfred E. Newman in the tank.

 

WMDs- You libs want a big pile of weapons with a giant sign saying "WMDS HERE" and an arrow pointing to it like in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. With the UN futzing around for so long on inspections, Saddam had a lot of time to move things to Syria, a nother Bathist country. When Kadafi saw the light, he told us that Iraq was doing their atomic research in Libya. In fact. we have found over a TON of enriched uranium in Iraq itself. There were caravans of trucks hauling stuff to Syria before the war, most likely chemial weapons and components.

I have a biology background and I know that their entire biological weapon stockpile could fit in the back of a van or SUV. Bacteria and viruses are stored in small tubes about the size of a pinkie finger in liquid nitrogen. The containers holding the liquid N2 are small, about the size of R2D2 (in fact, thats what we called the things in the lab). Send them to Syria and in a few weeks, the whole program is up and running again. Paul (BiB), who was working in tis field (WMDs) said to the libs "You don't know what you don't know". When I brought up the scenario above about the bio WMDs, he e-mailed me and said that I wasn't too far off.

 

Bush, in his speech after 9-11 never said that this would be a quick and easy war. He said there would be many battles ( and possibly stretch 10-20 years), but the Hot Pockets® mentality of the left want it to be quick and bloodless.

 

Go ahead and tout the tratorious left's political mastrubation yesterday. All they care about is power, not defending this country. To them, the party comes first, not America.

[Wacka]

Darin- up at 5 AM on a Saturday? Get some sleep!

[molson_golden2002]

You libs just suck up the distortion that the lame stream media put out in the guise of "news".

 

mg200, show us one credible reference where Bush actually said that Saddam was behind 9-11. What he said was that Iraq was training Ai-Quieda members. They did find several training camps for them.

 

When Bush was on the carrier, I remember Fox news asking someone about the Mission Accomplished banner. They said it was for the carrier crew. The Lincoln crew had their tour doubled in length. They accomplished THEIR mission and were coming home. What I think is that you libs are mad because Bush landed on the carrier and actually looked good in the flight suit, unlike Dukakis looking like Alfred E. Newman in the tank.

 

WMDs- You libs want a big pile of weapons with a giant sign saying "WMDS HERE" and an arrow pointing to it like in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. With the UN futzing around for so long on inspections, Saddam had a lot of time to move things to Syria, a nother Bathist country. When Kadafi saw the light, he told us that Iraq was doing their atomic research in Libya. In fact. we have found over a TON of enriched uranium in Iraq itself. There were caravans of trucks hauling stuff to Syria before the war, most likely chemial weapons and components.

I have a biology background and I know that their entire biological weapon stockpile could fit in the back of a van or SUV. Bacteria and viruses are stored in small tubes about the size of a pinkie finger in liquid nitrogen. The containers holding the liquid N2 are small, about the size of R2D2 (in fact, thats what we called the things in the lab). Send them to Syria and in a few weeks, the whole program is up and running again. Paul (BiB), who was working in tis field (WMDs) said to the libs "You don't know what you don't know". When I brought up the scenario above about the bio WMDs, he e-mailed me and said that I wasn't too far off.

 

Bush, in his speech after 9-11 never said that this would be a quick and easy war. He said there would be many battles ( and possibly stretch 10-20 years), but the Hot Pockets® mentality of the left want it to be quick and bloodless.

 

Go ahead and tout the tratorious left's political mastrubation yesterday. All they care about is power, not defending this country. To them, the party comes first, not America.

What a re-write of history! "Major combat operations are now over"

 

You have your head so far up Bush's butt you can't think for yourself

[X. Benedict]

You libs just suck up the distortion that the lame stream media put out in the guise of "news".

 

mg200, show us one credible reference where Bush actually said that Saddam was behind 9-11. What he said was that Iraq was training Ai-Quieda members. They did find several training camps for them.

While Bush never said "Saddam is responsible for 9-11" the public posture was always one of constant conjunction - "Saddam and the Terrorists" and even though he never said Saddam planned 9-11. He always including 9-11 in the rationale for invading Iraq.

 

the administration never dispelled the publics linkage between the two:

 

When he sent this to congress - he wasn't talking about Saudi Arabi.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030319-1.html

 

We are attacking Iraq .....blah ....blah....blah..... 9-11.

 

And you can also recall that it was news when Bush came out and said Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

 

I'm not trying to play gotcha here, but portraying the president as blameless as the virgin snow is, well, kinda worth a chuckle.

[Bungee Jumper]

While Bush never said "Saddam is responsible for 9-11" the public posture was always one of constant conjunction - "Saddam and the Terrorists" and even though he never said Saddam planned 9-11. He always including 9-11 in the rationale for invading Iraq.

 

the administration never dispelled the publics linkage between the two:

 

When he sent this to congress - he wasn't talking about Saudi Arabi.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030319-1.html

 

We are attacking Iraq .....blah ....blah....blah..... 9-11.

 

And you can also recall that it was news when Bush came out and said Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

 

I'm not trying to play gotcha here, but portraying the president as blameless as the virgin snow is, well, kinda worth a chuckle.

 

The administration never dispelled the myth of the presumed linkage between 9/11 and Iraq because the War on Terrorism was never intended to be "The War On Just The Terrorists That Perpetrated 9/11 While We Leave The Other Bastards Alone". The American public just naturally assumed it was only the latter; the administration just naturally assumed the public understood it was the former (i.e. on ALL terrorism).

 

And therein lies the nature of the "lies" ("confusion" would be a better word). The administration did an absolutely sh------- job of explaining that the War on Terrorism includes not just al Qaeda and the Taleban but other countries that pose a significant risk of exporting anti-American terrorism (any terrorism in theory; anti-American terrorism in reality). And in reality, there weren't a whole lot of countries even before 9/11 that posed that risk. Most of them learned their lesson in the '80s, that if you attack American interests directly or indirectly(e.g. Lockerbie), it's a losing game at best. Even Libya and Iran eventually wised up. But countries that never learned that lesson include Afghanistan...and Iraq.

[Chilly]

The administration actively pursued a link between al Qaeda, Saddam, and Iraq. What I don't believe they said was that there was directly a link between 9/11 and Iraq.

 

Still, the claim was that there was a link between the group responsible for 9/11 and the country that we were about to invade. This does EVERYTHING to play up the notion that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam, without actually stating that there was one. The administration played this up to the fullest to get support on their side (which has been disputed as even BEING correct by the former Undersecretary of Defense Feith, who had the task of double-checking the CIA data).

 

Rather than being a piss poor job of explaining it, I think that the administration tried to use it to play politics. A true Global War on All Terrorism would not have gotten near the support that a Global War On Those !@#$s Who Did 9/11 would get. So, they say one thing while at the same time doing another in order to get the support they need to kick off the Iraq war.

[Kelly the Dog]

The administration never dispelled the myth of the presumed linkage between 9/11 and Iraq because the War on Terrorism was never intended to be "The War On Just The Terrorists That Perpetrated 9/11 While We Leave The Other Bastards Alone". The American public just naturally assumed it was only the latter; the administration just naturally assumed the public understood it was the former (i.e. on ALL terrorism).

 

And therein lies the nature of the "lies" ("confusion" would be a better word). The administration did an absolutely sh------- job of explaining that the War on Terrorism includes not just al Qaeda and the Taleban but other countries that pose a significant risk of exporting anti-American terrorism (any terrorism in theory; anti-American terrorism in reality). And in reality, there weren't a whole lot of countries even before 9/11 that posed that risk. Most of them learned their lesson in the '80s, that if you attack American interests directly or indirectly(e.g. Lockerbie), it's a losing game at best. Even Libya and Iran eventually wised up. But countries that never learned that lesson include Afghanistan...and Iraq.

While all that maybe true, I think they deliberately did it that way, knowing full well that the only way they could get public support for this war, and therefore start and conduct this war, was to get the public to think if we don't do it Iraq will attack us like 9/11 and there will be a mushroom cloud over parts of America. And even though they may have had higher motives, and maybe even that is the right way to stop the terrorist problem, you cannot just go in and take over other countries just because you hate them and think there may be problems, which is what we did. So they made and repeatedly implied the direct connection, knowing IMO there was only a slight and peripheral one. Otherwise they wouldn't have had support of the congress and press and public and couldn't have gone to war. So it was a clear lie without being a technical lie.

[molson_golden2002]

The administration never dispelled the myth of the presumed linkage between 9/11 and Iraq because the War on Terrorism was never intended to be "The War On Just The Terrorists That Perpetrated 9/11 While We Leave The Other Bastards Alone". The American public just naturally assumed it was only the latter; the administration just naturally assumed the public understood it was the former (i.e. on ALL terrorism).

It was "natural?" I'm sure you want to believe that but its simply not true. Bush used the horrible events of 9-11 to push this ill begotten war. It wasn't "natural" like a flower springing to life in a field, it was a deliberate act of deception. Just like claiming drone aircraft were going to cross the Atlantic and spray us all with biological weapons, or any number of the other terrifying mushroom cloud claims that were made. They thought this was all going to be a piece of cake [like Panama or Gulf War I that Bush watched on TV] and all would end well with them as the heroes.

[molson_golden2002]

(which has been disputed as even BEING correct by the former Undersecretary of Defense Feith, who had the task of double-checking the CIA data).

Ya, he said it was correct, alright:

 

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJour...OPN50021707.htm

 

The Feith channel

 

How Pentagon hijacked intelligence for war

 

At the time in 2002, the public face of the Bush administration was still talking as if it was doing everything possible to avoid a war with Iraq. In reality, plans for an invasion were so solid by August of that year -- seven months before the invasion and months before the administration went to the United Nations to make the case for war -- that Pentagon planners already had a slide show about what Iraq would look like post-invasion, in 2006: It would be democratic. It would be stable. It would be a staunch American ally. And no more than 5,000 American troops would be stationed there. (You can see the slideshow at George Washington University's National Security Archive, nsarchive.org.)

 

Armed with rosy myths like that, Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense at the time -- and a chief architect of the invasion -- could make the case to President Bush that attacking Saddam Hussein would be easy and rewarding. But there were still many in the intelligence community, and indeed dissenting generals within the Pentagon, who saw things differently. Analysts within the State Department and the CIA were skeptical about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Their views never made it to the president's ears, which Vice President Dick Cheney waxed with gate-keeping of his own. What views he did let through were those of Douglas Feith, an aide to Rumsfeld and the person chiefly responsible for coordinating policy between national security agencies.

 

Feith was in charge of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. It was created by Rumsfeld to blunt and if necessary contradict intelligence assessments by the CIA. As an inspector general's report put it last week, the office "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." In other words, Feith's group cooked up intelligence, especially regarding a link between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime through a July 2002 memo entitled, "Iraq and al-Qaida: Making the Case." Cheney publicly and repeatedly pointed to those links in the run-up to war. The president alluded to them. Yet within the intelligence community the links had been debunked, and have subsequently been proved bogus.

 

The inspector general's report did not go so far as to say that laws were broken. It merely called the workings of Feith's office "inappropriate." The response, by Feith and other former Pentagon officials, was to plead innocence about any wrongdoing, because everything done by that office was legal, having been done at Rumsfeld's directive.

 

Strictly speaking, yes. A secretary of defense has all the authority to create an intelligence office of his own (the Pentagon has more intelligence branches that any other government agency). But Feith's office was created with a mission that even then had questionable intentions. As the Guardian, the British newspaper, reported in July 2003, the Office of Special Plans was set up "to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice President Dick Cheney."

 

The approach directly clashed with the way the intelligence community is designed to work. That mission was set out by Ronald Reagan in a 1981 executive order: "All reasonable and lawful means must be used to ensure that the United States will receive the best intelligence available," the order stated, while maximum emphasis should be given to fostering analytical competition among appropriate elements of the intelligence community. "All agencies and departments should seek to ensure full and free exchange of information in order to derive maximum benefit from the United States intelligence effort."

 

That's not how Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush understood intelligence. They can claim that specific laws weren't broken. They can't claim that Reagan's executive order wasn't flouted. Nor can they claim that their approach didn't lead to a catastrophic outcome -- exactly the sort of outcome Reagan's order is designed to prevent.

[Bungee Jumper]

While all that maybe true, I think they deliberately did it that way, knowing full well that the only way they could get public support for this war, and therefore start and conduct this war, was to get the public to think if we don't do it Iraq will attack us like 9/11 and there will be a mushroom cloud over parts of America. And even though they may have had higher motives, and maybe even that is the right way to stop the terrorist problem, you cannot just go in and take over other countries just because you hate them and think there may be problems, which is what we did. So they made and repeatedly implied the direct connection, knowing IMO there was only a slight and peripheral one. Otherwise they wouldn't have had support of the congress and press and public and couldn't have gone to war. So it was a clear lie without being a technical lie.

 

 

I think it was deliberate, too...I just think cause and effect is the opposite of what you think: the War on Terror, as defined, required Iraq be dealt with. As opposed to your point of view that the invasion required the War on Terror to be defined as it was.

 

I don't know of a way to conclusively prove it either way, though. Anecdotally, maybe, but not conclusively.

[Bungee Jumper]

It was "natural?" I'm sure you want to believe that but its simply not true. Bush used the horrible events of 9-11 to push this ill begotten war. It wasn't "natural" like a flower springing to life in a field, it was a deliberate act of deception. Just like claiming drone aircraft were going to cross the Atlantic and spray us all with biological weapons, or any number of the other terrifying mushroom cloud claims that were made. They thought this was all going to be a piece of cake [like Panama or Gulf War I that Bush watched on TV] and all would end well with them as the heroes.

 

 

Shut up, moron. Learn to read.

[molson_golden2002]

Shut up, moron. Learn to read.

Is reading natural?

[Alaska Darin]

Is reading natural?

No, it's fundamental!

[molson_golden2002]

No, it's fundamental!

Hey, its the partisan non-partisan guy! You remeber, the same one who said Cheney's cuts [Republican cuts] to the military were good, but the same ones continued by Clinton [Democrat] were bad.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think it was deliberate, too...I just think cause and effect is the opposite of what you think: the War on Terror, as defined, required Iraq be dealt with. As opposed to your point of view that the invasion required the War on Terror to be defined as it was.

 

I don't know of a way to conclusively prove it either way, though. Anecdotally, maybe, but not conclusively.

My point in all this, as we discussed here before the war, when there were a lot of good discussions, pro and con, was that we as a country have no right to go in and take over a country unless they do something to us, or they are a real and imminent threat. They may deserve it, but you just can't do it, like you just can't shoot people that deserve to be shot. It creates a bigger mess than it solves, and it gets the entire world after you, especially because we're supposed to be the good guys, and we're supposed to be for freedom. That doesn't mean ignore Iraq and Saddam and the bigger war on terrorism. It means you have to find a different and better way to fight the war over there rather than here. And you especially can't do it by thumbing your nose at the rest of the world arrogantly and say fukk you guys if you're pussies, we'll do it anyway. You just can't. But we did.

 

The biggest problem with the whole thing, IMO, and I have said it before, is that BEFORE this war, all the crazy Muslims and Arabs and fundamentalists and terrorists and arabic equivalent of the retard rodeo used to think and complain that all we Americans want to do is take over their land and take their oil and inflict our infidel philosophies and government on their people and in their lands so we can dominate them. And they used to be completely wrong. And now they're completely right. Because that's exactly what we did for all intents and purposes (with the possible exception of take all their oil).

[Alaska Darin]

Hey, its the partisan non-partisan guy! You remeber, the same one who said Cheney's cuts [Republican cuts] to the military were good, but the same ones continued by Clinton [Democrat] were bad.

Why don't you go ahead and link the post? Oh, that's because everyone who can actually process information would again see for themselves what a buffoon you are. That's OK, I'll go ahead and do it for you.

 

Here's the post.

 

Once again, cuts were necessary as military spending was (and still is) out of control and extraordinarily wasteful. Those cuts should have been made from duplicated efforts and bureaucracy. THOSE WERE NOT THE CUTS THAT WERE MADE. It wouldn't have mattered WHICH PARTY WAS IN OFFICE. You don't cut operational capacity and leave wasteful bureaucracy. That has huge long term costs, which we are seeing now. I'd explain it further but you simply aren't worth the time. Everyone who has been here since before the war should remember multiple posts from me lamenting operational capacity and readiness for sustained operation.

 

I don't vote for Democrats or Republicans, nor do I care who proposes what. I used Mr. Clinton because YOU are a PARTISAN IDIOT. Of course, you can't resist trying to make it look like it's some kind of "pro-Republican" thing because that's what YOU would do. Thanks for doing exactly what was (is) expected.

 

At least you admitted in the thread that you're a moron. That's a step toward recovery.

[Adam]

Personally, I believe that Saddam did have weapons, regardless of what we are told- we never get told everything, and thats the way it should be.

 

I think it was naiive to think we could walk on over and find anything substantial- maybe a couple decades ago, but you aren't just going to sneak in without them knowing, and find anything.