What if Bush and Cheney ARE delusional?

[Cyrus]

Here, read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800799.html

Stop asking links for common knowledge.

 

[denverdoc]

ditto, we have spent enough time discussing whether a million Iraqis should die for no reason other than consensus, who like us wanted nothing more than a fair shake. Consensus is a joke; tell me right now, how many troops in Iraq are non-US? The UN, were we to have some cajones, would not all be about appeasing Israel, and it might have a chance of doing good.

 

[Art]

Conversations with God

Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas
[snip]
According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Lots of people speak to God which is fine but personally I get concerned when somebody thinks God speaks back to them as invariably this always seems to be a prelude to a massacre.

Reasons for war

As for reasons other than WMD? Well if there were any they are irrelevant as the only semi-legal basis for the war was that Iraq posed an immediate and imminent threat to it's attackers (Ref infamous 45 minute warning). So if Bush was to now try and claim other reasons he would leave himself open to prosecution for war crimes. Personally I wish he would.

Deaths in Iraq -

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.
[snip]
Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.

While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.

"We're very confident with the results," said Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins physician and epidemiologist.

A Defense Department spokesman did not comment directly on the estimate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
note; this does not include the estimated 500,000 excess deaths caused by sanctions.

Abu Ghraib -

According to the International Red Cross, close to 90% of the people being held are not guilty of the allegations and many were picked-up almost at random by US patrols on sweeps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison
as evidenced by the subsequent release of most of the detainees.

Bush's latest delusion

Bush's latest delusion which he is foisting on the American public is that his so called 'surge' is working. I say delusion because the facts on the ground simply do not reflect his personal reality. Already in the first 19 days of this month there have been 73 MNF deaths and officialy 991 Iraqi deaths which at this rate means this months total will beat last month's which was itself the highest for 6 months. http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

Victory in Iraq

At this point it seems victory in Iraq will be when the last Iraqi has been killed or the last one leaves the country which is not quite as facetious as it may sound as ~approx 10% of the population has already left and the exodus is continuing at >50,000 per month http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=070416090120.177hfxej.php

As Cyrus has pointed out all of this information is easily found on the net.

 

[GTdan]

Denverdoc:

You haven't answered my post though. What justification do you have or anyone else to draw the line at some point and say, "these are the factors that caused this death, which place the blame on the US."? Especially if there are many other factors. If we are going to include indirect causes, there should be a rational reason why you chose to include certain ones and not others. You related it to math so let's continue on that: You have a very large sum of terms and variables (possibly even an infinite sum) that result in a final solution (which is the death of a man). You truncated the sum to include only certain terms and say these are the major contributing factors to this death. What's the justification? Why not include the rest of the variables?

Art:

I think its quite funny that you quote from the Palestinian PM. Can there be an even more biased source than that? Come on, if Bush really did say that openly more than once, someone should be able to come up with something better than a quote from the Palestinian PM.

And I am afraid you are wrong about the WMD Art. ALL the other reasons for war ARE legal because Congress passed the Resolution. Whether you think that is fair or not or whether you think the American public was fooled is a different story, but that is what our government decided based on the reasons in that resolution.

I have to get to class but I will get back to you on the links you gave. Despite the fact that they are from liberal media sources (Washington Post), I will see if I can follow up on them and find a better source. One comment though. I did a google search for the quote made by the Red Cross. Their report has the Red Cross cited "some intelligience officials." Anything better than hearsay? The ICRC is great and all but they are not Military Intelligience or the CID. There should be an investigation on the prison that actually provides a number from a direct source right? However, you gave a link and at this point, there aren't any news sources disputing this claim that I have found yet so unless I find one, I take back my statement about the prisoners.

As for Cyrus, I'm afraid that the only source he provided was for a claim I didn't ask him to prove (the one about the bomb). LOL. I wonder why?

About your last 2 paragraphs: Like I said before, I am setting my hopes on this last security operation. If that doesn't work, well...what else can we do but leave. I don't dispute any facts you gave on this part.

 

[Art]

Art:

I think its quite funny that you quote from the Palestinian PM. Can there be an even more biased source than that? Come on, if Bush really did say that openly more than once, someone should be able to come up with something better than a quote from the Palestinian PM.

Seeing as how it was the Palestinian PM he addressed the remarks to it is about the best source possible. Also note this article is by an ISRAELI newspaper Haaretz. Is there some reason other than overt racism to question the integrity of the now president of Palestine?

And I am afraid you are wrong about the WMD Art. ALL the other reasons for war ARE legal because Congress passed the Resolution. Whether you think that is fair or not or whether you think the American public was fooled is a different story, but that is what our government decided based on the reasons in that resolution.

Have you heard of international law or perhaps the UN Charter which America is a signatory to? It seems not, so I suggest you go read up a little on them and then we can continue this conversation.

I have to get to class but I will get back to you on the links you gave. Despite the fact that they are from liberal media sources (Washington Post), I will see if I can follow up on them and find a better source. One comment though. I did a google search for the quote made by the Red Cross. Their report has the Red Cross cited "some intelligience officials." Anything better than hearsay? The ICRC is great and all but they are not Military Intelligience or the CID. There should be an investigation on the prison that actually provides a number from a direct source right? However, you gave a link and at this point, there aren't any news sources disputing this claim that I have found yet so unless I find one, I take back my statement about the prisoners.

Here are some quotes from Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, who ran the prison, obtained under the FOI act;

US held youngsters at Abu Ghraib
Children as young as 11 years old were held at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison at the centre of the US prisoner abuse scandal, official documents reveal.
Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of the jail, gave details of young people and women held there.

Her assertion was among documents obtained via legal action by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The Pentagon has admitted juveniles were among the detainees, but said no child was subject to any abuse.

Brig Gen Karpinski made her remarks in an interview with a general investigating the abuses at the prison.
[snip]
Brig Gen Karpinski, who was in charge at Abu Ghraib from July to November 2003, said she often visited the prison's youngest inmates.

She said in her interview that she thought one boy "looked like he was eight years old".

"He told me he was almost 12," she said. "He told me his brother was there with him, but he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother. He was crying."

She said the military began holding children and women at Abu Ghraib from mid-2003. She did not say what the youngsters had been locked up for.

In her interview with Maj Gen George Fay, she also said intelligence officers had worked out an agreement to hold detainees without keeping records.
The Pentagon has acknowledged holding so-called "ghost detainees" on the basis that they were enemy combatants and therefore not entitled to prisoner of war protections.

Brig Gen Karpinski said US commanders were reluctant to release detainees, an attitude she called "releasophobia".

In her interview, she said Maj Gen Walter Wodjakowski, then the second most senior army general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians," she said Maj Gen Wodjakowski told her. "We're winning the war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4339511.stm

So seeing as how the pentagon has gone to great lengths to hide details of prisoners and their treatment in Abu Ghraib the Red Cross is the best independent source available.

 

[BobG]

Well, I'll get back to you about the lies until I read more for myself. But if I don't then I take back my statement on there being no proof of Cheney being delusional (however, that doesn't even go close to say they are starting WW3).

Victory in Iraq to me would be to get these people to work together enough where they have a democratic government that can hold its own against the insurgents and terrorists in their own country. Also a government that will provide better for the innocent people there than Saddam did. After all, that was what was implied in the resolution. Are we achieving victory? Well, we got the first half right. We booted Saddam. Constructing a new government has turned out to be harder than expected. I don't think the solution is withdrawal yet though. I have my hopes set on this last boost in forces there. If that doesn't fix the situation, I think we will all have to settle for the next best thing. There is something that Bush said in one of his recent radio addresses that I think fits here.

"But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success."

(IMO, withdrawal does not ensure anything good for Iraq, or for us in the future for that matter).

Other reasons for the invasion were given, however protecting the US from a threat is about the only reason given that I think you could get a consensus on. The purpose of the US government is to serve to the people of the US, not the people of Iraq or the people of the world. 'Democracy for Iraq' would not be enough reason for invasion to a large number of Americans, probably not enough for a majority of Americans.

Constructing a new government has not been harder than expected if past history is any guide. Between the end of WWII and 2002, 16 of the 122 civil wars were fought between different ethnic groups in the same country. One of those civil wars was resolved successfully through power sharing between the different groups (South Africa). Ten of the 16 are still being fought, five were resolved by one side defeating the other, sometimes by genocide. The average duration is 43 years, but with 3 of the civil wars still being fought starting over 30 years ago, the average duration increases every day.

Edit: In fact, power sharing has only resolved 6 of the 122 civil wars that were fought for any reason and three of those are based on a technicality. A civil war is considered ended if fighting stops for at least 5 years. In three of the 'resolved' cases, civil war broke out again around 10 years later. The jury's still out on one of the other three. Guatemala resolved its civil war by powersharing less than 10 years ago, but it has a rather tenuous hold on maintaining control and peace.

None the less, I agree withdrawal may not be the best solution now that we've opened the box. Turkey has been fighting a civil war against Kurds in its own country since 1984. Now that war threatens to spill over into the Kurdish region of Iraq, about the only truly stable part of the country up to now. Iran is definitely involved to some extent in Iraq, and that threatens to bring a Saudi involvement to prevent Iraqi Shiites from massacring Iraqi Sunnis. In other words, a quick withdrawal could push a civil war over the edge and make fears of WW3 come true.

I don't have much hope for successfully resolving things in Iraq, but agree we need to figure out what we're going to do after Iraq falls apart before we leave. I sure don't have any faith left in Bush's decisions, so holding on until a better decision maker is in office is probably our best hope for avoiding total disaster.

http://test.cbrss.harvard.edu/NewsEvents/Seminars-WShops/PPE/papers/fearon.pdf

 

[GTdan]

Seeing as how it was the Palestinian PM he addressed the remarks to it is about the best source possible. Also note this article is by an ISRAELI newspaper Haaretz. Is there some reason other than overt racism to question the integrity of the now president of Palestine?

I noticed that it was Israeli. That doesn't change the fact that the Palestinian PM is the one who said it. People in the middle east don't exactly have a good view of the US. And that's putting it lightly. So why should I be accepting hearsay from a guy who has questionable US relations and opinions? If I cited O'Reilly from fox news as saying that he was in a private meeting with Speaker Pelosi and she happened to say she wanted to nuke Iran, would you believe me? No you wouldn't. Because you question the guy who is making the quote. Everybody here is saying this is common knowledge. If it's so common, and if Bush so openly mentioned that God told him to go to war on various occasions, you should be able to find something better than that. I googled various phrases. I couldn't find anything.

Have you heard of international law or perhaps the UN Charter which America is a signatory to? It seems not, so I suggest you go read up a little on them and then we can continue this conversation.

The Iraq War Resolution was passed and approved by the entire US government. So it is perfectly legal with respect to the US government. Whether the war was legal internationally, I'm not sure, and I wasn't aware that was the case you were presenting.

Here are some quotes from Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, who ran the prison, obtained under the FOI act; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4339511.stm

So seeing as how the pentagon has gone to great lengths to hide details of prisoners and their treatment in Abu Ghraib the Red Cross is the best independent source available.

Ok. I have to say that is a pretty disturbing quote from the Brig Gen. Concerning the prisoners, I take back what I said.

Let's make list of claims here Art:

-he outed a CIA agent working on guess what, WMDS!

This is probably relating to the claim made by ex CIA agent Tyler Drumheller, who said that he provided counter evidence to the WMD claim. What's the problem with this source? He is one man making all these claims. If evidence was selectively chosen to fit the policy, I expect more people to come out with the truth then just one man. Or am I to believe that everyone in government has lost their sense of morality?

-He relieved generals who disagreed with him on going to war just before the war started!

Googled various phrases. Can't find anything.

-He told the world to piss off with their weapons inspectors after they found nothing!

Pointless claim. Unsupported. Can't find anything about this either.

-Hes taking away our civil liberties!

I don't even know what this is referring to.

No, not really. Bush flat out LIED and skewed the evidence from the CIA,

Can't be proven. If it could, he would be impeached by now. The most that can be said is that he was fooled along with us or just made a stupid interpretation of intel.

So that's like what? 1 claim out of all the ones made that are actually true so far, and the link was provided by you, not cyrus (the prisoner scandal). The claim about the CIA agent although has a factual base, really can't be proven since it is an isolated incident with one man. Not to mention the guy retired. He wasn't "outed." Apparently this knowledge isn't as common as is suggested.

BobG:

Perhaps they should have known better than to think they could successfully do a regime change. I think I can resign to that fact. We really do have to patiently wait for something better to happen.

 

[Cyrus]

1-This is probably relating to the claim made by ex CIA agent Tyler Drumheller, who said that he provided counter evidence to the WMD claim. What's the problem with this source? He is one man making all these claims. If evidence was selectively chosen to fit the policy, I expect more people to come out with the truth then just one man. Or am I to believe that everyone in government has lost their sense of morality?

Ever heard of valery plame and Joseph Wilson?

 

[Cyrus]

2-Googled various phrases. Can't find anything.

Yes, it IS true. Serach harder. Or perhaps you should read the book by Woodward called State of Denial, its in there. Some Generals were told get lost when they disagreed with the war.

Searching for 5 mins on the internet and not finding what I am telling you is not going to cut it...


I could give you transcripts of everything I said from sources, but I won't because it will take up WAY TOO much of my time. I expect you to know this if you follow the news for the last two years.

 

[Cyrus]

3-Pointless claim. Unsupported. Can't find anything about this either.

Eh, can't find anything? Here, search the phrase, "go it alone".

 

[Cyrus]

4-I don't even know what this is referring to.

You mean, you don't know about the wire tappings, phone records, medical records, trial without jury, etc that's been going on?

Its time to wake up.

 

[Cyrus]

Apparently this knowledge isn't as common as is suggested.

Watch the news more often, less republican blog reading.

This is common knowledge, as anyone who has been paying attention to the news would know this stuf long time ago.

 

[GTdan]

Ever heard of valery plame and Joseph Wilson?

The only thing verified about that is she was a covert agent working on WMD. No proof she was "outed by Bush," as you stated. In fact, what exactly she did and whether or not she was a NOC agent, is still up for grabs.

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

But several CIA veterans questioned how someone with an embassy background could have successfully passed herself off as a private-sector consultant with no government connections. Genuine NOCs, a CIA veteran said, "never use an official address. If she had [a diplomatic] address, her whole cover's completely phony. I used to run NOCs. I was in an embassy. I'd go out and meet them, clandestine meetings. I'd pay them cash to run assets or take trips. I'd give them a big bundle of cash. But they could never use an embassy address, ever." Another CIA veteran with 20 years of service agreed that "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period." After Plame was transferred back to CIA headquarters in the mid-1990s, she continued to pass herself off as a private energy consultant. But the first CIA veteran noted: "You never let a true NOC go into an official facility. You don't drive into headquarters with your car, ever." A senior U.S. intelligence official, who like the others quoted in this article spoke on condition of anonymity, noted that Plame "may not be alone in that category, so I don't want to suggest she was the only one. But it would be a fair assumption that a true-blue NOC is not someone who has a headquarters job at any point or an embassy job at any point."[10]

Eh, can't find anything? Here, search the phrase, "go it alone".

I did. Nothing. Unless you think that when Bush decided to go without UN approval he was telling them to "piss off."

Yes, it IS true. Serach harder. Or perhaps you should read the book by Woodward called State of Denial, its in there. Some Generals were told get lost when they disagreed with the war.

Searching for 5 mins on the internet and not finding what I am telling you is not going to cut it...

I could give you transcripts of everything I said from sources, but I won't because it will take up WAY TOO much of my time. I expect you to know this if you follow the news for the last two years.

Read a bit on MSNBC and wikied Jay Garner.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15075326/site/newsweek/page/5/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Garner

Garner wasn't relieved of duty. In fact, he failed to tell Bush the bad news on Iraq when he had a chance. And wiki states that it was "suggested" he was moved aside not because of his opposition to the war but because he disagreed on how to reconstruct Iraq.

You mean, you don't know about the wire tappings, phone records, medical records, trial without jury, etc that's been going on?

Its time to wake up.

Oh, you mean the stuff that ISN'T happening anymore since September last year? And you do mean the liberties of foreigners calling suspicious overseas locations right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

FYI, I don't watch or read Fox News. The most news I read is from BBC News and my local news stations. So I think you can stop dividing this issue along party lines.

What's my point with the above comments. Your making conclusions on issues that are either still classified, still under investigation, or remain (and probably will be for a long time) unproven and with little information to go off of. You may have one exception regarding the book you mentioned, yet that isn't exactly full proof either. It's one man's interpretation of other's people personal accounts. I say again, if it could be proven that Bush did all these things, he would be impeached by now.

There you have it Cyrus. I have essentially done YOUR job, according to Forum Guidelines. It is YOUR job to back up ANY factual claim. So if you intend to tell me now, that I haven't read or found enough info, or that the information is not still classified, then you are the one who needs to provide support. If you refuse, or simply can't, then it's safe to assume whatever you say is bogus.

I know you don't need this but:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

 

[Cyrus]

The only thing verified about that is she was a covert agent working on WMD. No proof she was "outed by Bush," as you stated. In fact, what exactly she did and whether or not she was a NOC agent, is still up for grabs.

What, her information was leaded to Noak from someone inside the white house. Come on man, give me a break. Thats under Bush's leadership, and is his fault for not controlling his people.

Unless you think that when Bush decided to go without UN approval he was telling them to "piss off."

Oh excuse me, you're right. When he went alone and ignored the UN he was doing it to please them.

 

[Art]

I noticed that it was Israeli. That doesn't change the fact that the Palestinian PM is the one who said it. People in the middle east don't exactly have a good view of the US. And that's putting it lightly. So why should I be accepting hearsay from a guy who has questionable US relations and opinions? If I cited O'Reilly from fox news as saying that he was in a private meeting with Speaker Pelosi and she happened to say she wanted to nuke Iran, would you believe me? No you wouldn't. Because you question the guy who is making the quote. Everybody here is saying this is common knowledge. If it's so common, and if Bush so openly mentioned that God told him to go to war on various occasions, you should be able to find something better than that. I googled various phrases. I couldn't find anything.

So it is simply racism on your part and for your information if you had picked up a newspaper or seen a news program in the past couple of years you would know that President Abbas is highly thought of and feted both by the Israeli and US gov'ts. As for how often Bush claimed God spoke to him I have no idea but he did make reference to his special relationship with God in a discussion with James Robinson

I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."
--George W. Bush commenting to Texas evangelist James Robinson in the run-up to his presidential campaign

and with regard to President Abbas

President Welcomes Palestinian President Abbas to the White House
The Rose Garden

11:31 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you. Mr. President, it is my honor to welcome the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people to the White House.

We meet at a time when a great achievement of history is within reach, the creation of a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state. President Abbas is seeking that goal by rejecting violence and working for democratic reform. I believe the Palestinian people are fully capable of justly governing themselves, in peace with their neighbors. I believe the interests of the Israeli people would be served by a peaceful Palestinian state. And I believe that now is the time for all parties of this conflict to move beyond old grievances and act forcefully in the cause of peace.

President Abbas's election four months ago was a tribute to the power and appeal of democracy, and an inspiration to the people across the region. Palestinians voted against violence, and for sovereignty, because only the defeat of violence will lead to sovereignty.

Mr. President, the United States and the international community applaud your rejection of terrorism. All who engage in terror are the enemies of a Palestinian state, and must be held to account. We will stand with you, Mr. President, as you combat corruption, reform the Palestinian security services and your justice system, and revive your economy. Mr. President, you have made a new start on a difficult journey, requiring courage and leadership each day -- and we will take that journey together.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html
I trust you don't have a problem with the Whitehouse's own website as a source.

The Iraq War Resolution was passed and approved by the entire US government. So it is perfectly legal with respect to the US government. Whether the war was legal internationally, I'm not sure, and I wasn't aware that was the case you were presenting.

That is the case I was presenting hence the reference to trial for War Crimes as for being legal in the US - the Act is a legal document okay but the fact that Congress made their decision based on lies and exagerations certainly leaves Bush wide open for impeachment.

Ok. I have to say that is a pretty disturbing quote from the Brig Gen. Concerning the prisoners, I take back what I said.

Let's make list of claims here Art:



This is probably relating to the claim made by ex CIA agent Tyler Drumheller, who said that he provided counter evidence to the WMD claim. What's the problem with this source? He is one man making all these claims. If evidence was selectively chosen to fit the policy, I expect more people to come out with the truth then just one man. Or am I to believe that everyone in government has lost their sense of morality?



Googled various phrases. Can't find anything.



Pointless claim. Unsupported. Can't find anything about this either.



I don't even know what this is referring to.



Can't be proven. If it could, he would be impeached by now. The most that can be said is that he was fooled along with us or just made a stupid interpretation of intel.

So that's like what? 1 claim out of all the ones made that are actually true so far, and the link was provided by you, not cyrus (the prisoner scandal). The claim about the CIA agent although has a factual base, really can't be proven since it is an isolated incident with one man. Not to mention the guy retired. He wasn't "outed." Apparently this knowledge isn't as common as is suggested.

Is there some reason why you seem to expect me to back up other folk's claims

 

[edward]

There is evidence that the "God" comments made to the Palestinian foreign minister were confused by the translators.

On the other hand Bush also made similar statements to an Amish group in Pennsylvania. The white house denied that Bush made the statement.

In July 2004, he stopped to campaign with some Amish folks at Lapp Electric Service in Smoketown, Pa. Just as the meeting ended, Bush, according to Mennonite Weekly Review columnist Jack Brubaker, told the group: "I trust God speaks through me. Without that I couldn't do my job." This also produced White House denials that Bush used those words.

The article about the "God" statements concluded with this:

The question is, how is it that Bush so confuses groups as diverse as the Palestinians and the Amish? Is it the Andover-Texas accent?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301688.html

The troubling part is that people like Pat Robertson have convinced the Religious right that God does speak through Bush. I hear it on a weekly basis from my religious fanatic sister-in-law.

As for the reason we invaded Iraq , it was oil. I have said this a dozen times now; "If the only natural resource in Iraq was broccoli, we would never have invaded".

Getting back to the mental condition of our leaders, just look at what they have done, cliamed, and lied about.
Any leader who thinks the situation in Iraq is anything other than a total disaster and was a terrible mistake is not looking at reality.

 

[GTdan]

So it is simply racism on your part

Is this going to degrade into accusations of racism or are you going to calm down?

and for your information if you had picked up a newspaper or seen a news program in the past couple of years you would know that President Abbas is highly thought of and feted both by the Israeli and US gov'ts. As for how often Bush claimed God spoke to him I have no idea but he did make reference to his special relationship with God in a discussion with James Robinson

Maybe I was thinking of Arafat when I responded. You have that. As I have often said, he is one man. Several people on this thread have claimed Bush made the comments on several occasions and very publicly. If so I think everyone should expect a bit more than just the He-said-She-said from one meeting with a PM in the middle east. Because, and let's all be honest, if the media here in the US got their hands on factual info like that, it would have been plastered all over the place.

That is the case I was presenting hence the reference to trial for War Crimes as for being legal in the US - the Act is a legal document okay but the fact that Congress made their decision based on lies and exagerations certainly leaves Bush wide open for impeachment.

Again, the only "lie and exaggeration" was WMD. The other justifications had to do with the condition of the civilian population, his general hostile intentions (especially towards the US), and Saddam's violation of UN resolutions and the 1991 cease fire agreement. Those are facts, not lies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

The war was possibly illegal under the UN Charter. I won't argue anything on that sense simply because I haven't read the Charter. But I think it is safe to say that the issue is in a very big gray area.

Is there some reason why you seem to expect me to back up other folk's claims

You stated that this information is easily found on the internet. I was pointing out all the claims made and actually how little can really be found.

Cyrus:

What, her information was leaded to Noak from someone inside the white house. Come on man, give me a break. Thats under Bush's leadership, and is his fault for not controlling his people.

Except that's not the point. The point I was making is that it is still being debated what exactly she really did in the CIA, because as the wiki states: people with desk jobs also have covert status.

Oh excuse me, you're right. When he went alone and ignored the UN he was doing it to please them.

He wasn't telling them to piss off either. Your exaggeration of these events is a real problem. Yeah, we went in virtually alone. We did it because at the time we felt it was best for our security. That's not telling the UN to piss off. If someone smacks you in the back of the head, are you going to ask some third party whether or not you should defend yourself?

And btw, you forgot about everything else I said.

 

[Cyrus]

Bad Analogy, first of all. Iraq did not smack us in the back of the head, in fact it had nothing to do with 9-11.

The UN weapons inspects went to Iraq and found no WMDs. Bush ignored their findings and went in anyways and guess what, he didnt find jack-s. His arrogance put us in this mess...so don't sit there and tell me we went to war for reasons other than WMDS, WMDS was reason number 1, numero uno. That was THE main reason. (Otherwise, why would you sit there and say we went to Iraq for our own security). What, is giving them freedom a security issue now? -B.S.

Also, there is no debate on what Vallery Plame did for the CIA. Read more in that wiki link...or better yet don't rely on wiki and read the NEWS.

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover", and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

 

[denverdoc]

exactly who and when smacked us in the head? (edit:simultaneous post)

 

[GTdan]

Bad Analogy, first of all. Iraq did not smack us in the back of the head, in fact it had nothing to do with 9-11.

Hindsight is 20/20. We believed they were a significant threat at the time of the invasion. So no, not a bad analogy at all. If you sincerely believe someone behind you just smacked you in the head, are you going to ask a third party whether you should defend yourself?

The UN weapons inspects went to Iraq and found no WMDs. Bush ignored their findings and went in anyways and guess what, he didnt find jack-s. His arrogance put us in this mess...so don't sit there and tell me we went to war for reasons other than WMDS, WMDS was reason number 1, numero uno. That was THE main reason. (Otherwise, why would you sit there and say we went to Iraq for our own security). What, is giving them freedom a security issue now? -B.S.

I'm sorry. But official government documentation (which I provided twice) proves you wrong. Whether you choose to believe otherwise despite what is on your screen is not my problem. Read the 2 links I gave if you want to answer your own question.

Also, there is no debate on what Vallery Plame did for the CIA. Read more in that wiki link.

The wiki quote is a quote from someone else. It is a comment made by Elisabeth Bumiller, NOT a conclusive statement. Here is the release of information cleared by the CIA director at the end of the wiki:

On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life

It's really easy to blame the guy at the top for every action taken by people under him. But the government is an organization. There are many people in charge of many people who are also in charge of many people...etc, etc, etc. Bush doesn't personally micromanage every person in the ranks and it's not his job to. Should there be some accountability as to why there is so much irresponsibility and deception? Sure. That doesn't mean the top ranking person deliberately made the decision and single handedly did everything as you suggest. Like I said, your exaggeration is a problem. If you want to hold Bush accountable for a lot of the problems in the government right now, that's ok. There are issues I have too with the current admin. But to consistently point him out as the one with the smoking gun is not correct.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bad Analogy, first of all. Iraq did not smack us in the back of the head, in fact it had nothing to do with 9-11.

But that is a lie perpetuated by the Bush admin until long after we all knew better. Were they simply too delusional to see this, or were they lying?

As for the point made earlier re my quote and Cheney: Who sold the war to Congress? Cheney has been the loudest voice of all from day one. And as for those Democrats who yielded to the national fervor that Bush et al leveraged to their own advantage, those dems acted as cowards. When the chips were down, they tucked their tails and bowed to the threat of being called a traitor by an admin out of control. When we needed them most, they failed us. And Hillary is at the top of the list.

“I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Now that's a brave and honest man who was 100% correct.

 

[Cyrus]

Hindsight is 20/20. We believed they were a significant threat at the time of the invasion. So no, not a bad analogy at all. If you sincerely believe someone behind you just smacked you in the head, are you going to ask a third party whether you should defend yourself?

No, its NOT hindsight. People at the time were saying this was a load of crap and were silenced.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sorry. But official government documentation (which I provided twice) proves you wrong. Whether you choose to believe otherwise despite what is on your screen is not my problem. Read the 2 links I gave if you want to answer your own question.

I guess you must have been asleep during the start of the war when EVERYONE, was shouting WMDs. So, was Colin Powell at the UN holding viles of freedom dust?

Yes, there were other reason for war, but those were not the primary reason for the war. So don't sit there and BS us all by making it out that we really went to war because of freedom.

 

[Cyrus]

Like I said, your exaggeration is a problem. If you want to hold Bush accountable for a lot of the problems in the government right now, that's ok. There are issues I have too with the current admin. But to consistently point him out as the one with the smoking gun is not correct.

This never ending slew of problems is under Bush's watch. Its not an isolated incident, it is a constant problem with this adiministration. They can't do a damn thing right to save their lives. At this point, it is time to blame bush and kick his ass out of office.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No personal attacks on other members please.

 

[Cyrus]

I edited it out,

Republicans make my blood boil.

 

[GTdan]

No, its NOT hindsight. People at the time were saying this was a load of crap and were silenced.

Sure, people were saying it. But apparently not enough were saying it because the Resolution WAS PASSED BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. It IS hindsight. Yeah, sure, maybe you were the one of the people with the voice of reason on the Iraq war, whatever. Whether or not there were people who disagreed with the war is not in question. The fact is, the majority of politicians and citizens believed in this war at the time.

I'll make it easy and answer the question for you. If you really believed someone had attacked you, you wouldn't be asking a third party for permission to defend yourself. And you know this, that's why you are avoiding the question.

I guess you must have been asleep during the start of the war when EVERYONE, was shouting WMDs. So, was Colin Powell at the UN holding viles of freedom dust?

Yes, there were other reason for war, but those were not the primary reason for the war. So don't sit there and BS us all by making it out that we really went to war because of freedom.

Nope, I was wide awake. Do I really need to explain this more? The media is NOT a better source than an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT. This resolution was read and passed by Congress. Maybe you and many other citizens were fooled into thinking it was all WMD by reading too much of the Washington Post. But politicians knew the deal, and they jumped right into it. Or do you intend to tell me that word of mouth and the tv is a more credible source?

And apparently you didn't read the links I gave or the posts I made. I never gave you a primary reason for the war. I very directly stated there were many reasons and no primary reason for it.

 

[Cyrus]

I'll make it easy and answer the question for you. If you really believed someone had attacked you, you wouldn't be asking a third party for permission to defend yourself. And you know this, that's why you are avoiding the question.

Wow, you just don't get it do you? Iraq never attacked us. That's why it was called a preemptive war.

But politicians knew the deal, and they jumped right into it.

No, they didnt. Turn on the news lately? BOTH republicans and deomcrats are saying they would NOT have supported the war had they known the amount of misinformation they were given thanks to Bush. I am not saying its excusible, they were asleep at the wheel, BUTT they were not given the facts straight either.

 

[Cyrus]

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 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 "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 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 Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

1- Saddam was interfearing with weapons inspects to keep Iran thinking they had chemical weapons.

2- OOPS, we already know that one was BS!

3- brutal opression is not a reason to go to war.

4- Again, largely FALSE after 1992.

5- Wow, your going to war from something in 93' don't you think your a little bit late in acting??

6- FALSE - Al Qaida was not in Iraq prior to the war.

7- OOPs that's wrong too, you can't give WMDs to terrorists when you don't have any!


Sooo, it seems to me that WMDs were the primary reason. Show me the other reasons then Dan...I can't see what's not there.


Iraq and Saddam were contained, he posed no more a threat to us than before. In fact, Iraq is muchh much WORSE off now than it was with Saddam.

So, from your list, I see 2 main reasons. (1) WMDS and (2) bringing freedom. I thought we already told you that (2) is not a valid reason for war and (1) was proven to be a load of bull-****.

 

[edward]

Sure, people were saying it. But apparently not enough were saying it because the Resolution WAS PASSED BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.

True but they voted based on cherry picked evidence provided by an administration who started planning the invasion of Iraq the day they took office.

People expect their leaders to provide them with straight forward truth. Instead we received lies, exagerations, and testimony from Iraqis who hadn't been in Iraq in years. We watched Collin Powell's presentation at the United Nations with the faith that we were being presented with a truthful situation by our leaders. We were not.

You can't keep falling back on the, " Congress voted in favor of the invasion" excuse. They were given the same bogus information the the American people were.

Collin Powell has admitted that the WMD evidence was false, why can't you?

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1442

 

[Astronuc]

Hindsight is 20/20. We believed they were a significant threat at the time of the invasion.

Hindsight is 20/20, except for those who still don't get. We did not believe they[Iraq] were a significant threat. Certainly those who were uniformed would have believed. In the base of Bush and Cheney, they were in a position to know that Iraq was not a threat, and perhaps they did in which case they deliberately falsified evidence and lied/mislead Congress. Otherwise they are incompetent, which based on their handling of Iraq certainly seems to be the case, or they are depraved and demented.

The current situation was forseen by many (including myself) who were critics of the war and of Bush in the first place. Some of us do pay attention to the rest of the world, and do obtain much better information than provided by the media or government in the US.

Scott Ritter was heavily criticised because he insisted that there were no WMD. On the other hand, since the US (Reagan Administration) supplied the technology and some materials for bio and chemical weapons, as well as supporting Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war, perhaps some in the Bush administration(some of the same people from Reagan's admin) may have believed they would find bio/chem weapons.

As for democracy, clearly Bush stated that as a goal. The actions of the Bush administration would indicate otherwise, by virtue of the US influence (or interference) in the elections.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6899

Report of Covert Aid to Iraqi Candidates
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0717-04.htm , by Douglas Jehl, David E. Sanger

http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/tp36elections.htm

Assessing the Iraqi Elections’ Impact on Terrorism and Insurgency
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?issue_id=3570

 

[Cyrus]

Here I found this from one of my old pots.. Watch this video and keep your eyes and ears open.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7292279546899698502&q=bob+wright

Watch the second half. It answers allllllllllll your questions and is a VERY good source.

 

[GTdan]

Wow, you just don't get it do you? Iraq never attacked us. That's why it was called a preemptive war.

No, they didnt. Turn on the news lately? BOTH republicans and deomcrats are saying they would NOT have supported the war had they known the amount of misinformation they were given thanks to Bush. I am not saying its excusible, they were asleep at the wheel, BUTT they were not given the facts straight either.

Maybe you don't get it. Do you know what the phrase, hindsight is 20/20 means? It was believed there was a direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaida. They were believed to be harboring terrorists and producing WMD. Yes, these claims proved to be false. That doesn't not negate the fact that WE DID BELIEVE THEY WERE INVOLVED. Whether or not they are complaining now after seeing the truth is not my point. Now that I am going to perfectly phrase the question for you, ANSWER IT: Would you or would you not choose to freely defend yourself, if you believed 100% that someone was involved in a plot against you (whether directly or indirectly)?

You have forced me to rephrase it 3 times now. I think we all know what you are avoiding.

1- Saddam was interfearing with weapons inspects to keep Iran thinking they had chemical weapons.

1- Saddam was interfearing with weapons inspects to keep Iran thinking they had chemical weapons.
2- OOPS, we already know that one was BS!
3- brutal opression is not a reason to go to war.
4- Again, largely FALSE after 1992.
5- Wow, your going to war from something in 93' don't you think your a little bit late in acting??
6- FALSE - Al Qaida was not in Iraq prior to the war.
7- OOPs that's wrong too, you can't give WMDs to terrorists when you don't have any!
Sooo, it seems to me that WMDs were the primary reason. Show me the other reasons then Dan...I can't see what's not there.

So you quote 7 different reasons and then tell me there is only 1.
It doesn't matter whether you disagree with 6 out of 7. Congress of 2003 apparently isn't on your side.

And btw, there are much more than the 7 you numbered. You just read the wiki. Read the actual document. Are you cherry picking? Here let me number the reasons that wiki provided. REMEMBER, the document HAS MORE.

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

-it doesn't matter why. They violated the agreement.

2. 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"

-we believed they had them at the time. It has been proven that Saddam was intending to have them again.

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

-brutal repression may not be a reason for war to you but it is to Congress.

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

-It was proven that they had no capability. We didn't know that at the time either. They were definitely willing though.

5.Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 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

-It doesn't matter if you disagree with this reason. Congress APPROVED OF THESE REASONS!

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

- Yes, this is false. Again, watch your hindsight.

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

-same as above.

8.Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

-same as above.

9.The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them

-same as above

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

-same as above

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

-Another reason on its own. You may disagree again, but Congress thought it was sufficient.

So you see Cyrus, it doesn't matter AT ALL whether or not you agree or disagree with the Resolution. Congress approved of this resolution and therefore agreed that these were all valid reasons for war. Your continuing denial and constant yelling that WMD was the only reason won't make a difference. You may think they are not valid and most of us will agree that many of the accusations proved to be untrue, but that does not change the fact that these were the REASONS STATED BY OUR GOVERNMENT FOR WAR.

This is why it is called: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

EDWARD:

I'm afraid you don't understand what I am arguing about. I have already admitted the WMD evidence was false. I stated however, that WMD wasn't the only reason we went to war, it was just the only reason stressed by the media. Cyrus is intent on believing that WMD is the ONLY reason we went to war. I told and am continuing to tell him that he is mistaken and have provided the Iraq War Resolution approved by Congress which clearly states EVERY reason we went to war. This is not debatable. It's an official document. It's fact. It was stated on TV as well. And I have no idea why Cyrus is rambling on about whether the reasons were misplaced or not. That does not take away from the fact that they were the stated reasons for war. Plain and simple.

 

[GTdan]

Hindsight is 20/20, except for those who still don't get. We did not believe they[Iraq] were a significant threat. Certainly those who were uniformed would have believed. In the base of Bush and Cheney, they were in a position to know that Iraq was not a threat, and perhaps they did in which case they deliberately falsified evidence and lied/mislead Congress. Otherwise they are incompetent, which based on their handling of Iraq certainly seems to be the case, or they are depraved and demented.

The current situation was forseen by many (including myself) who were critics of the war and of Bush in the first place. Some of us do pay attention to the rest of the world, and do obtain much better information than provided by the media or government in the US.

Scott Ritter was heavily criticised because he insisted that there were no WMD. On the other hand, since the US (Reagan Administration) supplied the technology and some materials for bio and chemical weapons, as well as supporting Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war, perhaps some in the Bush administration(some of the same people from Reagan's admin) may have believed they would find bio/chem weapons.

As for democracy, clearly Bush stated that as a goal. The actions of the Bush administration would indicate otherwise, by virtue of the US influence (or interference) in the elections.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6899

Report of Covert Aid to Iraqi Candidates
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0717-04.htm , by Douglas Jehl, David E. Sanger

http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/tp36elections.htm

Assessing the Iraqi Elections’ Impact on Terrorism and Insurgency
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?issue_id=3570

Look, if you want to believe that the admin knew it was all false beforehand, go ahead. There's no proof for it but go ahead.

Note that when I say WE, I am generalizing. As I have CLEARLY mentioned, yes, there were open critics of the plan for invasion. Yet the majority of our representatives and the public approved. This is what I mean when I say we. If you want to exclude yourself from that majority, go right ahead. I have no problem with that. But apparently, far too many were fooled.

 

[Cyrus]

Maybe you don't get it. Do you know what the phrase, hindsight is 20/20 means? It was believed there was a direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaida. They were believed to be harboring terrorists and producing WMD. Yes, these claims proved to be false. That doesn't not negate the fact that WE DID BELIEVE THEY WERE INVOLVED. Whether or not they are complaining now after seeing the truth is not my point. Now that I am going to perfectly phrase the question for you, ANSWER IT: Would you or would you not choose to freely defend yourself, if you believed 100% that someone was involved in a plot against you (whether directly or indirectly)?

I am not going to answer your question because its WRONG! We were not 100% sure that someone was plotting against us!

Maybe YOUUUUUUUUUUU think that's what we thought, but its NOT the case.

Watch the video I sent you. I'll send you more later.


GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD, the congress did not get the full truth to make their decision.