US soldiers fight to protect USA/Bush

	You are not logged in. (log in or register)

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> US soldiers fight to protect USA/Bush

Pages:

Showing posts 226 - 242 of 242, (reverse)

Author

Thread

BADDBOYY21

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR

08/30/2005 01:06:01 AM · #226

Thank God or forefathers had some balls and did not care what other people thought about them. Otherwise the US wouldn't be here for everyone else to hate.

People in America don't know how good they have it.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

08/30/2005 10:21:45 AM · #227

Originally posted by BADDBOYY21:

Thank you for the insightfulness of your post. I shall go forth and sin no more.

BADDBOYY21

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR

08/30/2005 11:12:59 AM · #228

Glad I could help you out with the simplification lol. I'm just sick of hearing people bash this country.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/30/2005 11:22:20 AM · #229

Originally posted by RonB:

I find it interesting that many of those who argue your side of the political spectrum vehemently complain that Clinton would have been much more effective ( particularly as concerns anti-terrorism ) if he hadn't been so "distracted" by the impeachment proceedings brought against him because of his lies about philandering in the White House, but are now vehemently demanding that the Bush administration should be "distracted" by impeaching BUSH. The fact that many liberals maintain this kind of a double standard is, unfortunately, something that I have become accustomed to.

I've never heard that argument before, but conservatives love to bash Clinton...same old, same old. You keep on saying you want to deal with the current situation, but Clinton does not bear on the current situation with Iraq. Bush and his administration are responsible for that.

Originally posted by RonB:

Secondly, you SAY that the majority of the American people are finally beginning to realize that they were either duped or that they sent the biggest group of incompetents this country has seen in a long time back to the White House. Would you please provide a link or two outlining the scientific evidence to substantiate that claim? If not, I would be wise to look with skepticism upon the claimant's other claims and advice.

Just look at his current approval rating, dropping to a new low of 40%. Another poll had it even lower at 38%. Here's a link you can read about it and a quote from it: "Bush's current approval rating stands far below those for every other second term president at this point, save for Richard Nixon (34%). At this stage, for example, in August 1997, Bill Clinton's approval rating stood at 61%." So much for your attack on Clinton.

Originally posted by RonB:

I believe that he honestly believed that the intelligence information he was given was of sufficient gravity to propel us into the war in Iraq. I also believe that our elected Senators and Representatives, who are privy to the kinds of classified intelligence that "we", the common citizen, are NOT privy to, are better able to decide if the intelligence warrants granting approval to the President, AS THEY DID, to engage in military actions in Iraq. Please hold THEM accountable - even moreso than BUSH, since he is but ONE individual and COULD NOT have taken such action without their consent.

So how would you explain the Downing Street Memo that was circulated among officials in Tony blair's administration in 2002? Here's a quote:
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

This shows that the Bush administration rushed into war based on false premises that they knew were lies. They knew that ahead of the Iraq invasion! and they had no plans for dealing with the "aftermath." Basically, they got themselves into this situation. How is anyone, or any one country, to trust an administration such as this, that lies to their citizens, Congress and the world? The Bush administration are inept because they have underlying agendas, such as their globalization plans. They couldn't give a crap about establishing democracy in Iraq, except that it would be a PR coup and take the pressure off of them if they could make a show of it. Life will not improve for the common man/woman in that country.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/30/2005 12:17:17 PM · #230

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

I find it interesting that many of those who argue your side of the political spectrum vehemently complain that Clinton would have been much more effective ( particularly as concerns anti-terrorism ) if he hadn't been so "distracted" by the impeachment proceedings brought against him because of his lies about philandering in the White House, but are now vehemently demanding that the Bush administration should be "distracted" by impeaching BUSH. The fact that many liberals maintain this kind of a double standard is, unfortunately, something that I have become accustomed to.

I've never heard that argument before, but conservatives love to bash Clinton...same old, same old. You keep on saying you want to deal with the current situation, but Clinton does not bear on the current situation with Iraq. Bush and his administration are responsible for that.

1) Sure we love to bash Clinton. So what?
2) You're right - he doesn't bear on the current situation with Iraq, but then we arent' demanding that he be investigated NOW are we?
3) Even though we aren't demanding that he be investigated NOW, the fact is that he actually IS also responsible for the current situation with Iraq. As former President, HE had access to classified intelligence documents, too. And HE said on multiple occasions that Saddam Hussein was a danger and that he was developing WMD's. Part of the intelligence that Bush acted upon came from the Clinton administration.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Secondly, you SAY that the majority of the American people are finally beginning to realize that they were either duped or that they sent the biggest group of incompetents this country has seen in a long time back to the White House. Would you please provide a link or two outlining the scientific evidence to substantiate that claim? If not, I would be wise to look with skepticism upon the claimant's other claims and advice.

Just look at his current approval rating, dropping to a new low of 40%. Another poll had it even lower at 38%. Here's a link you can read about it and a quote from it: "Bush's current approval rating stands far below those for every other second term president at this point, save for Richard Nixon (34%). At this stage, for example, in August 1997, Bill Clinton's approval rating stood at 61%." So much for your attack on Clinton.

Huh? First of all, Judith's claim was far more specific than an APPROVAL rating. It made specific claim about what "the majority of the American people are finally beginning to REALIZE". How in the world can you infer the REASONS for their disapproval without asking the question? And WHAT does Clinton's approval rating have to do with whether he was distracted from his duties? Your logical connection eludes me.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

I believe that he honestly believed that the intelligence information he was given was of sufficient gravity to propel us into the war in Iraq. I also believe that our elected Senators and Representatives, who are privy to the kinds of classified intelligence that "we", the common citizen, are NOT privy to, are better able to decide if the intelligence warrants granting approval to the President, AS THEY DID, to engage in military actions in Iraq. Please hold THEM accountable - even moreso than BUSH, since he is but ONE individual and COULD NOT have taken such action without their consent.

So how would you explain the Downing Street Memo that was circulated among officials in Tony blair's administration in 2002? Here's a quote:
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

It's a nice memo. Nice inferences. Where are the FACTS? What EVIDENCE is offered that there was a "perceptible shift in attitude"? Isn't that just an OPINION? What EVIDENCE is offered that "military action was now seen as inevitable"? Isnt' that just another OPINION? etc. etc. etc. The entire memo is OPINION. Accept it as that.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

This shows that the Bush administration rushed into war based on false premises that they knew were lies.

NO, it doesn't. It CLAIMS to show that, but doesn't back up that CLAIM with any FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Show us memos issued by the BUSH administration that provide EVIDENCE to support the CLAIMS?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

They knew that ahead of the Iraq invasion! and they had no plans for dealing with the "aftermath." Basically, they got themselves into this situation. How is anyone, or any one country, to trust an administration such as this, that lies to their citizens, Congress and the world? The Bush administration are inept because they have underlying agendas, such as their globalization plans. They couldn't give a crap about establishing democracy in Iraq, except that it would be a PR coup and take the pressure off of them if they could make a show of it. Life will not improve for the common man/woman in that country.

Well, now, can we use the Olyuzi Memo as PROOF that BUSH LIED? Why not? It's as filled with CLAIMS as the Downing Street Memo. But, of course, it, too, contains NO EVIDENCE beyond the CLAIMS themselves.

Typical liberal tactics: CLAIMS, INNUENDO, but no EVIDENCE ( except for OTHER CLAIMS and INNUENDO ). No wonder that AirAmerica has to steal money from charities in order to PAY broadcast stations to carry their CLAIMS and INNUENDO.

( edited to fix quote attributions )

Message edited by author 2005-08-30 15:39:24.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/30/2005 12:41:09 PM · #231

Originally posted by RonB:

I find it interesting that many of those who argue your side of the political spectrum vehemently complain that Clinton would have been much more effective (particularly as concerns anti-terrorism) if he hadn't been so "distracted" by the impeachment proceedings brought against him because of his lies about philandering in the White House, but are now vehemently demanding that the Bush administration should be "distracted" by impeaching BUSH. The fact that many liberals maintain this kind of a double standard is, unfortunately, something that I have become accustomed to.

Originally posted by RonB:

Thirdly, there IS that matter of accountability. Clinton lacked it, for sure. As does John Kerry who claimed to have been in Cambodia on Christmas, and Hillary Clinton who just "happened" to find all those "missing" documents in her office one day - AFTER the Grand Jury investigation was concluded. And let's not forget the classified documents that were "accidently" removed from the National Archives in Sandy Berger's socks.

You sure do like to change the subject, don't you?

Originally posted by RonB:

I also believe that our elected Senators and Representatives, who are privy to the kinds of classified intelligence that "we", the common citizen, are NOT privy to, are better able to decide if the intelligence warrants granting approval to the President, AS THEY DID, to engage in military actions in Iraq. Please hold THEM accountable - even moreso than BUSH, since he is but ONE individual and COULD NOT have taken such action without their consent.

I don't think they're entirely blameless. They relinquished their Constitutional responsibility, and they acted in a cowardly manner in so doing. However, I don't see how this gets Bush off the hook.

Originally posted by RonB:

Furthermore, it is not a "mess", but I agree that you should hold those responsible for the problems in Iraq accountable - that would be the terrorists who daily do all they can to hinder progress, kill and maim the Iraqis who are trying to rebuilt their security forces, and attempt to terrorize and intimidate the people.

You describe a situation that Bush was warned repeatedly would be the likely outcome of our invasion of Iraq. Did he heed the warnings? Did he have plans in place to deal with such an outcome? You know the answer.

Originally posted by RonB:

As to your charge that we have been victims of an unrelenting propaganda campaign, I must agree. But the propoganda is NOT from the administration - it is from those who oppose the US and what it stands for.

Who are these people who "oppose the US and what it stands for"? And what, in your opinion, does the US stand for?

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/30/2005 01:20:35 PM · #232

Originally posted by RonB:

[...]the fact is that he actually IS also responsible for the current situation with Iraq. As former President, HE had access to classified intelligence documents, too. And HE said on multiple occasions that Saddam Hussein was a danger and that he was developing WMD's. Part of the intelligence that Bush acted upon came from the Clinton administration.

And exactly how does any of this make Clinton responsible for invading Iraq? Talk about tortured logic! The fact is that there was a group of neocons, which included, I believe, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, who were urging Clinton to declare war on Iraq back in 1998 or thereabouts. Clinton, of course, took the much more rational approach of containment through sanctions, etc., which I might add is exactly the approach that Bush administration officials (Rice and Powell) were touting in the year 2000. So please explain how Clinton is responsible for the Bush administration declaring war on Iraq.

Originally posted by RonB:

NO, it doesn't. It CLAIMS to show that, but doesn't back up that CLAIM with any FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Show us memos issued by the BUSH administration that provide EVIDENCE to support the CLAIMS?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Here is a link to the Downing Street Memo(s). The reader should keep in mind that these were SECRET documents, and that the authors had absolutely no incentive to skew the facts or the information that was being relayed to them by American officials.

And here is a link from the same website where some of RonB's other arguments are addressed.

Edited to add last link.

Message edited by author 2005-08-30 14:00:05.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/30/2005 02:05:16 PM · #233

We obviously have strong opinions; and I don't anticipate that anyone who is involved in this discussion is going to concede. It's certainly helped crystalize my feelings about the issue. My only hope is that others will read this thread and realize the importance of questioning everything.

I find it especially interesting that Bush (the man) was touted for his strength and leadership skills when his actions were popular and justified, immediately after 911. His supporters then seemed to have no problem giving him credit for his actions and statements then.

Now that things are not going well, there seems to be a lot blame shifting and excuse making. I guess I'm missing something...is he an influential leader or not?

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

08/30/2005 02:29:27 PM · #234

The truth to the matter is WE do not know if Things are going well or not. Only time will tell....and not just a short time either.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/30/2005 03:34:41 PM · #235

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:
I find it interesting that many of those who argue your side of the political spectrum vehemently complain that Clinton would have been much more effective (particularly as concerns anti-terrorism) if he hadn't been so "distracted" by the impeachment proceedings brought against him because of his lies about philandering in the White House, but are now vehemently demanding that the Bush administration should be "distracted" by impeaching BUSH. The fact that many liberals maintain this kind of a double standard is, unfortunately, something that I have become accustomed to.

Originally posted by RonB:
Thirdly, there IS that matter of accountability. Clinton lacked it, for sure. As does John Kerry who claimed to have been in Cambodia on Christmas, and Hillary Clinton who just "happened" to find all those "missing" documents in her office one day - AFTER the Grand Jury investigation was concluded. And let's not forget the classified documents that were "accidently" removed from the National Archives in Sandy Berger's socks.

You sure do like to change the subject, don't you?

No, not really. I was providing evidence in direct response to the issue of ACCOUNTIBLITY that YOU raised.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:
I also believe that our elected Senators and Representatives, who are privy to the kinds of classified intelligence that "we", the common citizen, are NOT privy to, are better able to decide if the intelligence warrants granting approval to the President, AS THEY DID, to engage in military actions in Iraq. Please hold THEM accountable - even moreso than BUSH, since he is but ONE individual and COULD NOT have taken such action without their consent.

I don't think they're entirely blameless. They relinquished their Constitutional responsibility, and they acted in a cowardly manner in so doing. However, I don't see how this gets Bush off the hook.

What do you mean when you say that you don't think that they are "entirely blameless"? Do you mean that you think that they are only partially to blame? If so, why won't you grant that same concession to President Bush? Is this evidence of yet another liberal double standard? ( Seems to be a plethora of those evident lately. )

FYI, it get's Bush "off the hook" by virtue of the fact that he is forbidden by law to undertake the type of action he did in Iraq without the approval of the Congress. Specifically, Section 2, Paragraph C of the War Powers Act of 1973, which reads "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Pursuant to that law the Congress DID grant the President the power to engage the U.S. armed forces in military action in Iraq. In other words, Bush did not make the decision all by himself - the Congress, who had access to the same intelligence data as the President, reviewed it and decided by majority vote to authorize the President to proceed as he determined necessary.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:
Furthermore, it is not a "mess", but I agree that you should hold those responsible for the problems in Iraq accountable - that would be the terrorists who daily do all they can to hinder progress, kill and maim the Iraqis who are trying to rebuilt their security forces, and attempt to terrorize and intimidate the people.

You describe a situation that Bush was warned repeatedly would be the likely outcome of our invasion of Iraq. Did he heed the warnings? Did he have plans in place to deal with such an outcome? You know the answer.

Yes, I do, and no, I don't. Did he heed the warnings? Yes, he did. And decided, as did the majority of the Congress, that the warnings were not sufficient to override the threat to national security. Did he have plans in place to deal with such an outcome? I don't know - what outcome are you referring to?

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:
As to your charge that we have been victims of an unrelenting propaganda campaign, I must agree. But the propoganda is NOT from the administration - it is from those who oppose the US and what it stands for.

Who are these people who "oppose the US and what it stands for"? And what, in your opinion, does the US stand for?

The people who oppose the US are those who think that they are more intelligent, and have more insight than the majority of the elected representatives in the U.S. Congress, and because of their superior intelligence, believe that THEY would have ignored all of the intlligence data, and believe all of the cautions, and so would NOT have authorized the President to engage the military in Iraq. Because of this kind of egotistical thinking, they feel that they are entitled to criticize the actions taken by the government of the U.S. to protect its national security. They are people who would rather give up their freedoms rather than fight to keep them. They erroneously believe that if we acquiesced to the demands of al Qaeda and the terrorists, and left Iraq immediately, that they, and we, would be forever free from terrorist attacks. They are parochial, xenophobic, self-serving - oh, and deluded. The are also great Monday morning quarterbacks, who believe that what they know NOW could have been, and should have been known THEN - and if it wasn't, then it's somehow Bush's fault.

The U.S. stands for the right of people to live openly and freely, and to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

08/30/2005 04:00:55 PM · #236

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Thanks for that link, Judith. Of particular interest to me is that statement in that memo where it says

Originally posted by DowningStreetMemo:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary

That statement is quite interesting because it show that at the time that the writer of the memo was in Washington the discussion included discussion of the potential consequences of Saddam using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on DAY ONE of the battle, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began - AND that the Defence Secretary ( Rumsfeld ) added [the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on] Israel.

Doesn't the Downing Street Memo then show EVIDENCE that, at the time of the writer's visit to Washington, High-ranking members of the Bush administration actually DID BELIEVE that Saddam HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

Remember, according to YOU, "The reader should keep in mind that these were SECRET documents, and that the authors had absolutely no incentive to skew the facts or the information that was being relayed to them by American officials"

Or are you still trying to make out that the American officials were "lying" about WMD's the whole time?

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/30/2005 09:00:52 PM · #237

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Here is a link to the Downing Street Memo(s). The reader should keep in mind that these were SECRET documents, and that the authors had absolutely no incentive to skew the facts or the information that was being relayed to them by American officials.

Thanks for that link, Judith. Of particular interest to me is that statement in that memo where it says
Originally posted by DowningStreetMemo:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary

That statement is quite interesting because it show that at the time that the writer of the memo was in Washington the discussion included discussion of the potential consequences of Saddam using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on DAY ONE of the battle, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began - AND that the Defence Secretary ( Rumsfeld ) added [the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on] Israel.

Doesn't the Downing Street Memo then show EVIDENCE that, at the time of the writer's visit to Washington, High-ranking members of the Bush administration actually DID BELIEVE that Saddam HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

Remember, according to YOU, "The reader should keep in mind that these were SECRET documents, and that the authors had absolutely no incentive to skew the facts or the information that was being relayed to them by American officials"

Or are you still trying to make out that the American officials were "lying" about WMD's the whole time?

For the most part, the consensus opinion among those opposing the war with Iraq (before the invasion) was that it was possible that Hussein had some chemical and/or biological WMD that had not yet been destroyed by the weapons inspectors. The weapons inspectors themselves, in 1998, concluded that they had destroyed 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's WMD (chemical and biological), all of its long-range missiles, and any rudimentary attempts at a nuclear program. In 2002 the weapons inspectors hadn't found any evidence of weapons programs, and the few missiles found were destroyed, missiles which in any event were not capable of reaching the U.S.

So was it reasonable to assume that Hussein had some chemical and/or biological agents that he might be willing to use and could deliver to a nearby battlefield IF IRAQ WAS ATTACKED by the U.S.? It might be reasonable to asume that such a scenario was possible, given the best intelligence the U.S. had at that time. Could one reasonably conclude that Iraq had stockpiles of such weapons, and missile systems to deliver those weapons to the United States? Not based on the best intelligence at the time, no. Could one reasonably conclude that Iraq was capable of launching nuclear weapons at the United States? Certainly not. Was there an imminent threat to the United States at the time? Was it even reasonable to assume that Iraq would threaten any of its close neighbors with WMD, given its experience in the first Gulf War? I don't think so.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/30/2005 09:41:28 PM · #238

Originally posted by RonB:

I find it interesting that many of those who argue your side of the political spectrum vehemently complain that Clinton would have been much more effective (particularly as concerns anti-terrorism) if he hadn't been so "distracted" by the impeachment proceedings brought against him because of his lies about philandering in the White House, but are now vehemently demanding that the Bush administration should be "distracted" by impeaching BUSH. The fact that many liberals maintain this kind of a double standard is, unfortunately, something that I have become accustomed to.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

You sure do like to change the subject, don't you?

Originally posted by RonB:

No, not really. I was providing evidence in direct response to the issue of ACCOUNTIBLITY that YOU raised.

Evidence? Of what? It seems to me that you sidestepped the issue of the accountability of the Bush administration altogether.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I don't think they're entirely blameless. They relinquished their Constitutional responsibility, and they acted in a cowardly manner in so doing. However, I don't see how this gets Bush off the hook.

Originally posted by RonB:

What do you mean when you say that you don't think that they are "entirely blameless"? Do you mean that you think that they are only partially to blame? If so, why won't you grant that same concession to President Bush? Is this evidence of yet another liberal double standard? (Seems to be a plethora of those evident lately.)

FYI, it get's Bush "off the hook" by virtue of the fact that he is forbidden by law to undertake the type of action he did in Iraq without the approval of the Congress. Specifically, Section 2, Paragraph C of the War Powers Act of 1973, which reads "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Pursuant to that law the Congress DID grant the President the power to engage the U.S. armed forces in military action in Iraq. In other words, Bush did not make the decision all by himself - the Congress, who had access to the same intelligence data as the President, reviewed it and decided by majority vote to authorize the President to proceed as he determined necessary.

I'll quote at length from the Downing Street Memo(s) website to support my contention that there are degrees of culpability and that Bush and his administration are primarily to be held responsible for the Iraq debacle. After all, it was they (Bush and his admin.), and not the Congress, that skewed the intelligence:

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

"On October 10, 2002, Congress voted to approve the use of force against Iraq. The President has indicated on several occasions that members of Congress had access to the same intelligence his administration had, and made their choice on the basis of this information. What is less known is the fact that what Congress was given bore little resemblance to the detailed reports the Bush administration was reading.

Senator Bob Graham, in his book, recounts a Sept 5, 2002 meeting he and Senators Durbin and Levin had with then CIA director George Tenet and his staff. Though the administration had long before decided on invasion, to the senators' amazement no National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq had yet been produced. Graham, Durbin and Levin demanded to see one, and three weeks later Tenet produced a 90-page document rife with caveats and qualifications (though these were buried in footnotes) about what we knew--or didn't know--about WMD in Iraq.

That report was classified, and as such was available only to those on the House and Senate intelligence committees. Graham pressed for it to be declassified, and got what he asked for on Oct 4--less than a week before Congress was to vote on the use of force. However, this declassified version was more like a marketing brochure: 20 pages in length, slickly produced with splashy grahics and maps, and with none of the caveats contained in the original. Graham described it later as "a vivid and terrifying case for war."

This 20-page, unqualified summary was the only information on WMD our senators and representatives had on which to base their decision on the use of force. And they had one week to make up their mind. The intelligence material Congress had was what the administration was willing to give them, namely a promotional piece whose lies of omission outweighed what was included by a factor of four."

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

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:

The outcome that you just described above, "terrorists who daily do all they can to hinder progress, kill and maim the Iraqis who are trying to rebuilt their security forces, and attempt to terrorize and intimidate the people." Is it me, or are you being intentionally dense for some reason?

Originally posted by RonB:

Oh, I see. So anyone who disagrees with you and with the Bush administration's foreign policy by definition must be against the United States. I could, of course, say the same about anyone who SUPPORTS the Bush administration's foreign policy, but I won't because the basis of your argument is utter nonsense.

Originally posted by RonB:

The U.S. stands for the right of people to live openly and freely, and to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Assuming they agree with you and the Bush administration, and assuming they hold the same religious beliefs as do you, and assuming of course that they're not homosexuals who want to marry -- a couple of caveats you forgot to add.

Message edited by author 2005-08-31 21:38:40.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/30/2005 10:49:13 PM · #239

Originally posted by RonB:

Thanks for that link, Judith. Of particular interest to me is that statement in that memo where it says
Originally posted by DowningStreetMemo:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary

That statement is quite interesting because it show that at the time that the writer of the memo was in Washington the discussion included discussion of the potential consequences of Saddam using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on DAY ONE of the battle, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began - AND that the Defence Secretary ( Rumsfeld ) added [the use of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION on] Israel.

Doesn't the Downing Street Memo then show EVIDENCE that, at the time of the writer's visit to Washington, High-ranking members of the Bush administration actually DID BELIEVE that Saddam HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

Remember, according to YOU, "The reader should keep in mind that these were SECRET documents, and that the authors had absolutely no incentive to skew the facts or the information that was being relayed to them by American officials"

Or are you still trying to make out that the American officials were "lying" about WMD's the whole time?

*****
I think you have it wrong. The paragraph you cite in the Downing Street Memo refers to discussion amoung British government officials in the Blair administration. The questions posed were from the British military and the defense secretary referred to was John Reid of Great Britain, not Donald Rumsfeld.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/30/2005 10:55:10 PM · #240

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

So was it reasonable to assume that Hussein had some chemical and/or biological agents that he might be willing to use and could deliver to a nearby battlefield IF IRAQ WAS ATTACKED by the U.S.? It might be reasonable to asume that such a scenario was possible, given the best intelligence the U.S. had at that time. Could one reasonably conclude that Iraq had stockpiles of such weapons, and missile systems to deliver those weapons to the United States? Not based on the best intelligence at the time, no. Could one reasonably conclude that Iraq was capable of launching nuclear weapons at the United States? Certainly not. Was there an imminent threat to the United States at the time? Was it even reasonable to assume that Iraq would threaten any of its close neighbors with WMD, given its experience in the first Gulf War? I don't think so.

****
I agree with this entirely, Hussein was never a threat to the United States post 9/11 and didn't have the means of delivering any WMDs. But let's assume for sake of discussion, that Hussein was as dangerous as the Bush administration said in 2002/3. A prudent and wise leader would not rush into a situation where WMDs could be used against, and wipe out, large populations. In fact, isn't that the reason why the US has not rushed into war with N. Korea? They pose a greater threat at this time to the US than Iraq did in 2003.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/30/2005 11:31:31 PM · #241

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So how would you explain the Downing Street Memo that was circulated among officials in Tony blair's administration in 2002? Here's a quote:
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

It's a nice memo. Nice inferences. Where are the FACTS? What EVIDENCE is offered that there was a "perceptible shift in attitude"? Isn't that just an OPINION? What EVIDENCE is offered that "military action was now seen as inevitable"? Isnt' that just another OPINION? etc. etc. etc. The entire memo is OPINION. Accept it as that.

It's not opinion, as you say, it's an understanding by British government officials in the Blair administration about the political and public relations strategies put forth by the Bush administration necessary to pull off an invasion of Iraq to have the general public of the US and Britain acquiesce.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

This shows that the Bush administration rushed into war based on false premises that they knew were lies.

Originally posted by RonB:

NO, it doesn't. It CLAIMS to show that, but doesn't back up that CLAIM with any FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Show us memos issued by the BUSH administration that provide EVIDENCE to support the CLAIMS?

I'll tell you what... I'll show you the evidence you want if you can show me the president's daily briefing memos regarding Iraq and intelligence documents that the Bush administration used erroneously to go to war with Iraq.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Claims, innuendo, but no evidence... That's exactly what we can say the Bush administration used to go to war with Iraq. Nothing concrete to show that Iraq was a threat, just false claims, but nothing concrete.
[/quote]

Message edited by author 2005-08-31 00:54:52.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

08/31/2005 12:15:05 AM · #242

.

Message edited by author 2005-08-31 00:19:47.

Pages:

Current Server Time: 06/21/2025 02:50:21 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.

Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/21/2025 02:50:21 AM EDT.