Ho Hum--Rehash of old news repackaged, and just in time for the season's political follies!
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163925,00.html

RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163925,00.html

pretty silly! The facts are alresdy known. 'Fess up. Take the criticism, Move on. Obfuscation only makes it worse.

I read in an article today that the U.S. military collected something like 600,000 documents from the Iraqis. That's way too much information with which to belabor the point. The Bush Administration manufactured lies, and also statistics to support those lies. So What! It worked to get the war they wanted.

It would seem to me that this leaves the way open for preferring war crimes charges against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and others who initiated the aggression against Iraq for political gain.

There is precedent in the Nuremburg Trials.

quote:

Originally posted by helez:
It would seem to me that this leaves the way open for preferring war crimes charges against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and others who initiated the aggression against Iraq for political gain.

There is precedent in the Nuremburg Trials.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Incoming administrations tend to be very forgiving of outgoing administrations.

So what. Were there now, and we might as well get the job done right. WTF!!! We can't rewrite history now, so let's move on for all of our sake.

This has never made sense.
If I wanted to sell a war, I would:
I would have gone into Iraq at once instead of waiting and giving them a chance to move, hide or destry evidence.
Make sure we found Weapons of Mass Destruction.
There would have been a million documents to back up my position.
Anybody who tried to reveal the truth would disappear.
I would confiscate all of the oil wells for use by the USA.
Instead, President Bush has let all of the information that points to him either being a bumbler or a crook come out for everyone to see. It would be too easy to fake proof that we should fight Iraq.
I have to believe he is honest enough to take the hard knocks instead of taking the low road and faking the documentation. I think he believed his advisors and the reports that were given to him.
The people who gave him the bad inteligence should be prosecuted.

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by helez:
It would seem to me that this leaves the way open for preferring war crimes charges against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and others who initiated the aggression against Iraq for political gain.

There is precedent in the Nuremburg Trials.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Incoming administrations tend to be very forgiving of outgoing administrations.

You may have a point there, Old Doc. After all, the first of President Bush's several uses of executive privilege prevented the release of documents in the Justice Department concerning former President Clinton.

quote:

Originally posted by Festus_1961:
This has never made sense.
If I wanted to sell a war, I would:
I would have gone into Iraq at once instead of waiting and giving them a chance to move, hide or destry evidence.
Make sure we found Weapons of Mass Destruction.
There would have been a million documents to back up my position.
Anybody who tried to reveal the truth would disappear.
I would confiscate all of the oil wells for use by the USA.
Instead, President Bush has let all of the information that points to him either being a bumbler or a crook come out for everyone to see. It would be too easy to fake proof that we should fight Iraq.
I have to believe he is honest enough to take the hard knocks instead of taking the low road and faking the documentation. I think he believed his advisors and the reports that were given to him.
The people who gave him the bad inteligence should be prosecuted.

But consider WHERE we are now (after all that has AND HASN't happened) WHY HASN'T ANYONE in reference to your points above been fired?

Let's be honest here. Is anyone surprised at what this report has to say? I mean, really, we all know the truth.

quote:

I have to believe he is honest enough to take the hard knocks instead of taking the low road and faking the documentation. I think he believed his advisors and the reports that were given to him.
The people who gave him the bad inteligence should be prosecuted.

I too, don't believe that this was all part of some conspiracy or a deliberate deception.

But what you have here is a classic example why scientific studies are often done double-blind, where the the subjects of the reasearch and the reaserchers both don't know who got the actually drug and who got the placebo..

Entities, both inside this country and outside, having access to more or less, the same scope of intelligence came to a drastically different conculsions regarding the status of the threat in Iraq. It turns out that they were right, and we were wrong. Its tough to say that, but you can't just warp reality to make things seem hunky dory when they aren't.

The administration desperetly wanted to hear certain things; because they fit with their particular worldview.. Conciously, or subconciously : Facts, and the providers of those facts were "cherry picked" to fall in line with long held suppositions.

Its not a conspiracy, just a nasty confluence of powerful men, self-rationalizion, and a bit of Hubris...

quote:

Originally posted by IHAWKER:
Let's be honest here. Is anyone surprised at what this report has to say? I mean, really, we all know the truth.

We all do, but some refuse to accept it.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkAntney:
But consider WHERE we are now (after all that has AND HASN't happened) WHY HASN'T ANYONE in reference to your points above been fired?

Hmmm...wasn't Rumsfeld fired? Wasn't Tenet forced to retire? Didn't Colin Powell step down?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkAntney:

But consider WHERE we are now (after all that has AND HASN't happened) WHY HASN'T ANYONE in reference to your points above been fired?[/QUOTE]
Nobody in government has had the good sense to ask for my recommendations!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by doctoledo:
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163925,00.html

pretty silly! The facts are alresdy known. 'Fess up. Take the criticism, Move on.
Obfuscation only makes it worse.

YOU WANT FACTS you say?
Here are the FACTORS the Administration presented to Congress to gain "Authority to Use Military Force In Iraq."
Here are the FACTORS the Administration presented to Congress to gain "Authority to Use Military Force In Iraq."

"The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

- Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

- Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

- Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

- Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

- Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

- Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

- Iraq's "continue[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

- The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

- The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

- Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Then, today's; as usual, HEAVILY BIASED, spin is put out by newspaper editors:

" President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Wrong, see above for the correct reasons we are there!

Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.
Wrong again, read above...


Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence."
Again, made up media BS

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by helez:
It would seem to me that this leaves the way open for preferring war crimes charges against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and others who initiated the aggression against Iraq for political gain.

There is precedent in the Nuremburg Trials.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Incoming administrations tend to be very forgiving of outgoing administrations.

You may have a point there, Old Doc. After all, the first of President Bush's several uses of executive privilege prevented the release of documents in the Justice Department concerning former President Clinton.

Yep...another good example is Ford/Nixon (same party but that doesn't seem to make a difference).

quote:

Originally posted by schmiddc:

quote:

I have to believe he is honest enough to take the hard knocks instead of taking the low road and faking the documentation. I think he believed his advisors and the reports that were given to him.
The people who gave him the bad inteligence should be prosecuted.

I too, don't believe that this was all part of some conspiracy or a deliberate deception.

But what you have here is a classic example why scientific studies are often done double-blind, where the the subjects of the reasearch and the reaserchers both don't know who got the actually drug and who got the placebo..

Entities, both inside this country and outside, having access to more or less, the same scope of intelligence came to a drastically different conculsions regarding the status of the threat in Iraq. It turns out that they were right, and we were wrong. Its tough to say that, but you can't just warp reality to make things seem hunky dory when they aren't.

The administration desperetly wanted to hear certain things; because they fit with their particular worldview.. Conciously, or subconciously : Facts, and the providers of those facts were "cherry picked" to fall in line with long held suppositions.

Its not a conspiracy, just a nasty confluence of powerful men, self-rationalizion, and a bit of Hubris...

Terrific post. This administration is too bumbling to actually come up with a coherent conspiracy plan. Your explanation makes a lot more sense to me.

quote:

Originally posted by schmiddc:

quote:

I have to believe he is honest enough to take the hard knocks instead of taking the low road and faking the documentation. I think he believed his advisors and the reports that were given to him.
The people who gave him the bad inteligence should be prosecuted.

I too, don't believe that this was all part of some conspiracy or a deliberate deception.

But what you have here is a classic example why scientific studies are often done double-blind, where the the subjects of the reasearch and the reaserchers both don't know who got the actually drug and who got the placebo..

Entities, both inside this country and outside, having access to more or less, the same scope of intelligence came to a drastically different conculsions regarding the status of the threat in Iraq. It turns out that they were right, and we were wrong. Its tough to say that, but you can't just warp reality to make things seem hunky dory when they aren't.

The administration desperetly wanted to hear certain things; because they fit with their particular worldview.. Conciously, or subconciously : Facts, and the providers of those facts were "cherry picked" to fall in line with long held suppositions.

Its not a conspiracy, just a nasty confluence of powerful men, self-rationalizion, and a bit of Hubris...

Sort of like Gov. Spitzer, who finally did the right thing by resigning.

I think the important point is - al-Qaeda is in Iraq now and we need to fight them wherever they are! By killing them in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever, it prevents them from killing us here at home.

Has anybody read the report, or are all the comments based on this reporters' notes/article? Seems there were different conclusions not "reported" by a reporter know to be against the administration.
The report shows that his regime did in fact have ties to terrorists including Hamas (the regime funded suicide bombers) and Hezbollah (which, by the way, killed U.S. Servicemen on a peace mission in Lebanon).
Page 6 specifically says that the Report did not target any specific group. Therefore it goes on to say that report did not give all info as some destroyed by prior regime and some was destroyed during operations trying to recover such.
The article is based on a "summary" and has no link to the original document, needed to make a real decision.