Iraqi Defector Admits Fabricating Bioweapons Program

Lies that helped launch a war
World • Views: 34,071

The Iraqi defector who convinced American and British intelligence services that Iraq had a secret biological weapons program with mobile laboratories now admits he made it all up.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.

“Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right,” he said. “They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.”

The admission comes just after the eighth anniversary of Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations in which the then-US secretary of state relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND. It also follows the release of former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s memoirs, in which he admitted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction programme.

Jump to bottom

392 comments
1 darthstar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:33:25am

So Curveball turns out to be a slimeball. No wonder Bush and Rumsfeld liked him so much.

2 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:35:45am

I am sure that Colin Powell knew about it as well, but somehow his sense of duty led him to go make that pathetic selling job in fromnt of the UN Security Council.

3 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:35:50am

“codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, “

WHY DID WE TRUST SOMEONE WE DECIDED TO CALL “CURVEBALL”?

Also if memory serves I’m pretty sure according to Jon Stewart the German files on this guy said he was an alcoholic and well I’ll let Jon take over…

Jon: When the Germans are calling you an alcoholic…. mmmm… you likee the booze!

4 darthstar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:36:30am

Seriously, his lies only led to the deaths of 4,000+ Americans and 100,000+ Iraqis…why wouldn’t he be “proud”…

5 S'latch  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:39:03am

How intelligent.

6 Big Steve  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:40:10am

So when was he really lying……then or now. I can’t see any difference in the situations regarding self interest for him. Then to topple Saddam or now to claim credit.

7 HappyWarrior  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:42:56am

So, where all the apologies from the people who called war opponents unpatriotic? Of course, I am glad Hussein is gone and I don’t think there are many who don’t share that view but I just feel for anyone who lost family because of this.

8 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:42:57am

re: #1 darthstar

So Curveball turns out to be a slimeball. No wonder Bush and Rumsfeld liked him so much.

He had to convince a whole lot of people before Bush and Rumsfeld knew he he was.

Further, this came after Clinton’s assessment of Iraq:

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

More:

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons…Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

More:

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team — including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser — I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors

More:

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens…

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

From CNN Transcripts

9 Summer Seale  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:44:24am

All I have to say is:

You know, I’ll never forget my old dad…when these things would happen to him…the things he’d say to me…


(Probably one of the best random comedy moments EVER) =)

10 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:44:36am

“The Margin of Democracy”.

Sounds like a great title for a thriller.

11 Four More Tears  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:45:48am

re: #10 SanFranciscoZionist

“The Margin of Democracy”.

Sounds like a great title for a thriller.

Or a System of the Down song.

12 Kragar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:46:36am

This man should be put on trial and if found guilty, executed for what his lies led to.

13 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:46:39am

Ahaha I remember, during my first few weeks on LGF, of getting hammered in a thread because of my assertion that the administration deliberately lied and fabricated non-existent evidence to allow an invasion of Iraq.

No! That could NEVER happen!

14 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:46:49am

You know now that I’m done being angry, does anybody else feel like this sort of reads like some sort of fuastian tragedy where you make a wish and the devil grants it in the most ironic way possible? This guy lies to try and bring democracy to his nation…. and sure enough he gets Saddam toppled and killed, he gets election in Iraq…. and well yeah, he gets modern day Iraq….

15 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:47:12am

re: #7 HappyWarrior

So, where all the apologies from the people who called war opponents unpatriotic? Of course, I am glad Hussein is gone and I don’t think there are many who don’t share that view but I just feel for anyone who lost family because of this.

Because it was our Patriotic Duty to support the war, no matter what the reason.

/

16 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:47:58am

re: #8 researchok

Yeah, the lefties are crowing today as if this gives them some sort of vindication but Clinton and Gore both thought Iraq’s weapons programs were a potential threat. If Saddam were still around today Obama would probably agree.

17 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:48:10am

re: #13 Locker

Ahaha I remember, during my first few weeks on LGF, of getting hammered in a thread because of my assertion that the administration deliberately lied and fabricated non-existent evidence to allow an invasion of Iraq.

No! That could NEVER happen!

They stilll might not have knowingly lied and fabricated evidence.

Clearly its time for another rematch of Team Evil Versus Team Stupid….

18 treasured people  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:48:16am

We have to say, though, that what happened in Iraq as a result of US involvment could have something to do with what has happened in Egypt. There could even be a snowball effect where the Iranian people and other non-free Moslem populations take to the streets and demand their freedom. What if it was suddenly unacceptable, anywhere on earth, to have dictatorships? If that happened, and it very well could happen with the instantly democratizing power of the Internet, some credit would have to go to the US military and the work it did in Iraq.

19 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:48:29am

re: #14 jamesfirecat

You know now that I’m done being angry, does anybody else feel like this sort of reads like some sort of fuastian tragedy where you make a wish and the devil grants it in the most ironic way possible? This guy lies to try and bring democracy to his nation… and sure enough he gets Saddam toppled and killed, he gets election in Iraq… and well yeah, he gets modern day Iraq…

Some truth to that.

20 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:49:24am

re: #14 jamesfirecat

You know now that I’m done being angry, does anybody else feel like this sort of reads like some sort of fuastian tragedy where you make a wish and the devil grants it in the most ironic way possible? This guy lies to try and bring democracy to his nation… and sure enough he gets Saddam toppled and killed, he gets election in Iraq… and well yeah, he gets modern day Iraq…

Iraq is one of the few countries in the middle east that doesn’t seem to be having pro democracy demonstrations.

21 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:49:24am

Our intelligence agencies fucking suck.

22 darthstar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:49:32am

re: #8 researchok

He had to convince a whole lot of people before Bush and Rumsfeld knew he he was.

Further, this came after Clinton’s assessment of Iraq:

More:

More:

More:

From CNN Transcripts


Yes, but after 12 years of bombing Iraq Bush knew they didn’t have the capability to do any of the shit they used as an excuse to attack. Clinton acted on the evidence he had at the time and removed those threats. Bush pretended they still existed.

Clinton had as much to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq as Saddam did with 9/11.

23 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:50:24am

re: #16 Killgore Trout

Yeah, the lefties are crowing today as if this gives them some sort of vindication but Clinton and Gore both thought Iraq’s weapons programs were a potential threat. If Saddam were still around today Obama would probably agree.

Absolutely.

Obama has done a bang up job on national security. He is unequivocal in that department.

He gets kudos from me.

24 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:51:46am

re: #16 Killgore Trout

Yeah, the lefties are crowing today as if this gives them some sort of vindication but Clinton and Gore both thought Iraq’s weapons programs were a potential threat. If Saddam were still around today Obama would probably agree.

You don’t deal with all potential threats via invasion… See George W. Bush and North Korea….

25 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:51:51am

re: #16 Killgore Trout

Yeah, the lefties are crowing today as if this gives them some sort of vindication but Clinton and Gore both thought Iraq’s weapons programs were a potential threat. If Saddam were still around today Obama would probably agree.

Funny, neither of them advocated toppling the government of Iraq without any kind of plan as to what to replace it with.

“Weeks, not months” That’s what we were promised. It’s been a decade.

26 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:51:55am

re: #18 treasured people

We have to say, though, that what happened in Iraq as a result of US involvment could have something to do with what has happened in Egypt. There could even be a snowball effect where the Iranian people and other non-free Moslem populations take to the streets and demand their freedom. What if it was suddenly unacceptable, anywhere on earth, to have dictatorships? If that happened, and it very well could happen with the instantly democratizing power of the Internet, some credit would have to go to the US military and the work it did in Iraq.

Sorry, but I think events in Iraq had only the most marginal effect on Tunisia and Egypt. I somehow cannot imagine those people saying, “Wouldn’t it be great if we could be more like Iraq right now”?

Let us turn the argument around: what if we had not toppled Hussein by force? Would there be crowds protesting in downtown Baghdad right now? Would he be forced out of power without it costing us hundreds of billions of collars and thousands of dead and wounded?

27 darthstar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:52:46am

re: #16 Killgore Trout

Yeah, the lefties are crowing today as if this gives them some sort of vindication but Clinton and Gore both thought Iraq’s weapons programs were a potential threat. If Saddam were still around today Obama would probably agree.

Clinton sent sorties over Iraq throughout his entire two terms. The “No fly zone” (remember that?) covered pretty much every inch of Iraq from Bagdhad to Basra. The longest period of time between the end of Bush 41’s term and our invasion in 2003 where no US bombs were dropped on Iraqi soil was six days. Six days.

We knew Saddam wasn’t a threat when we invaded. If he was a threat, we wouldn’t have invaded, because Bush only liked to play when he thought the odds were stacked in his favor.

28 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:53:01am

re: #22 darthstar

Yes, but after 12 years of bombing Iraq Bush knew they didn’t have the capability to do any of the shit they used as an excuse to attack. Clinton acted on the evidence he had at the time and removed those threats. Bush pretended they still existed.

Clinton had as much to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq as Saddam did with 9/11.

Well, not exactly.

Firstly, no one in the Bush administration connected Saddam to 9/11.

Secondly, the fact that WMD manufacturing equipment was found hidden and buried (as opposed to destroyed or non existent as claimed) only bears Clinton out.

Saddam was a threat.

29 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:54:01am

re: #24 jamesfirecat

You don’t deal with all potential threats via invasion… See George W. Bush and North Korea…

True- but as Clinton noted, Saddam was a different kind of threat. He actually used WMD’s.

30 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:54:12am

re: #25 Fozzie Bear

Funny, neither of them advocated toppling the government of Iraq without any kind of plan as to what to replace it with.

“Weeks, not months” That’s what we were promised. It’s been a decade.

I think that’s a bit of revisionist history. They had a plan, some things work and some things don’t but they eventually got things working there.

31 HappyWarrior  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:54:36am

I have to say my big objection at the time to the way the Bush administration handled this was how they acted like it was going to be easy. Heck didn’t that one official, Ken Adelman say it would be a “cakewalk.” If people want to know what got people aggrevated at the Bush administration, you need to look at statements like that.

32 darthstar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:56:11am

re: #28 researchok


Firstly, no one in the Bush administration connected Saddam to 9/11.


Dick fucking Cheney did.

Secondly, the fact that WMD manufacturing equipment was found hidden and buried (as opposed to destroyed or non existent as claimed) only bears Clinton out.

Saddam was a threat.


Saddam wasn’t a threat to Kuwait anymore…let alone Israel, Iran, Jordan, or fucking Palau. Shit, Grenada could have kicked Iraq’s ass in 2003. Bush invaded a country that wasn’t capable of defending itself. Then he lost interest and all hell broke loose.

33 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:56:29am

re: #28 researchok

Well, not exactly.

Firstly, no one in the Bush administration connected Saddam to 9/11.

The Bush Administration absolutely repeatedly linked Iraq and 9/11.

Examples:
[Link: www.csmonitor.com…]
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]
[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

There’s mountains more where that came from.

34 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:57:01am

re: #30 Killgore Trout

I think that’s a bit of revisionist history. They had a plan, some things work and some things don’t but they eventually got things working there.

Yeah I mean Dick Cheney had clearly been working on the problem for almost a decade at that point!

35 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:57:14am

re: #17 jamesfirecat

They stilll might not have knowingly lied and fabricated evidence.

Clearly its time for another rematch of Team Evil Versus Team Stupid…

I find that impossible to believe. The minute the administration started talking about invading Iraq I KNEW it was bullshit.

How? I’m not that smart. Probably because it was FREAKING OBVIOUS! I do not understand the surprise or the “we never knew” stuff. We blew up everything the guy had in the first gulf war and then parked weapons inspectors in there until JUST before the invasion when we pulled them out while claiming Saddam threw them out.

Bullshit from the word go. You don’t redirect your forces from their primary mission to some non-threat. It’s stupid unless it’s just a distraction from not catching Bin Laden or payback for Dad or something.

THERE WAS NO REASON TO BE IN IRAQ!

36 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:58:03am

re: #32 darthstar

Dick fucking Cheney did.


Saddam wasn’t a threat to Kuwait anymore…let alone Israel, Iran, Jordan, or fucking Palau. Shit, Grenada could have kicked Iraq’s ass in 2003. Bush invaded a country that wasn’t capable of defending itself. Then he lost interest and all hell broke loose.

Where did Cheney say that?

37 darthstar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:58:55am

re: #35 Locker

Exactly. People like to pretend we didn’t keep a tight lid on Iraq from 1991 to 2003. The No-Fly zone covered 75% of the country. Saddam couldn’t take a shit without someone in the US knowing about it.

38 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 11:59:33am

re: #30 Killgore Trout

I think that’s a bit of revisionist history. They had a plan, some things work and some things don’t but they eventually got things working there.

The plan was to be greeted with flowers by the grateful citizenry after completely disbanding all government agencies, police force, and then… what?

1. Shock and Awe
2. ???
3. Democracy!!!

39 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:00:19pm

re: #36 researchok

Where did Cheney say that?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

In the same Meet the Press interviews, Cheney implied a connection between Iraq and Mohamed Atta; “The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.”[14] and “With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”[15] Czech officials have since backed off of this claim, and even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion “that the meeting ever took place” has been “pretty well knocked down now.”[17] (See Mohamed Atta’s alleged Prague connection.)

40 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:00:30pm

re: #8 researchok

He had to convince a whole lot of people before Bush and Rumsfeld knew he he was.

“Curveball” was identified within the intelligence community to be unreliable. The Bush administration was warned.

Curveball’s German intelligence handlers saw him as “crazy … out of control”, his friends called him a “congenital liar”, and a US physician working for the Defense Department who travelled to Germany to take blood samples seeking to discover if Anthrax spores were present was stunned to find the defector had shown up for medical tests with a “blistering hangover”, and he “might be an alcoholic”. While there were many reports that Curveball was actually a relative (younger brother) of one of Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC) top aides, the investigative commission stated that it was “unable to uncover any evidence that the INC or any other organization was directing Curveball.”

The Bush administration ignored evidence from the UN weapons inspectors that Curveball’s claims were false. Curveball had identified a particular Iraqi facility as a docking station for mobile labs. Satellite photography had showed a wall made such access impossible, but it was theorised that this wall was temporary. “When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on February 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball’s statements.” Instead, the inspectors found the warehouse to be used for seed processing


The Bush administration chose to deliberately undermine, in a coordinated effort, any evidence that contradicted their numerous claims that there was no doubt that Iraq presented an eminent threat.

Nothing that Bill Clinton or any other democrat said or didn’t say will change those simple facts.

It’s called accountability.

41 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:01:01pm

I’m amazed that people are still defending Iraq war as though it wasn’t obviously an incredibly bad idea to anyone sane before it even began.

42 shecky  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:01:10pm

Hey, who were you gonna trust? Hans Blix, or Curveball?

43 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:01:20pm

re: #38 Fozzie Bear

The plan was to be greeted with flowers by the grateful citizenry after completely disbanding all government agencies, police force, and then… what?

1. Shock and Awe
2. ???
3. Democracy!!!

How is that working out for the coalition??

44 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:02:00pm

re: #30 Killgore Trout

I don’t think the current state of Iraq can be described as ‘working’. It’s corrupt, and people disappear inside the byzantine ‘justice’ system.

[Link: www.nytimes.com…]

And there’s still torture.

[Link: theweek.com…]

[Link: www.amnesty.org…]

45 darthstar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:02:22pm

re: #36 researchok

Where did Cheney say that?


“This long-term struggle became urgent on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 . That day we clearly saw that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home,” said Cheney, who was accompanied by his wife, Lynne, and their daughter, Elizabeth.

“So the United States made a decision: to hunt down the evil of terrorism and kill it where it grows, to hold the supporters of terror to account and to confront regimes that harbor terrorists and threaten the peace,” Cheney said.


[Link: www.globalresearch.ca…]

Or are you asking “Where did Cheney say that?” in the “The separation of Church and State isn’t in the constitution word for word” sense?

46 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:02:28pm

re: #38 Fozzie Bear

The plan was to be greeted with flowers by the grateful citizenry after completely disbanding all government agencies, police force, and then… what?

1. Shock and Awe
2. ???
3. Democracy!!!

Image: Gnomes_plan.png

Nice one man.

47 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:02:31pm

re: #28 researchok

Well, not exactly.

Firstly, no one in the Bush administration connected Saddam to 9/11.

Sort of.

It was not by accident that so many people ended up believing that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 attacks in some way.

48 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:03:06pm

re: #30 Killgore Trout

I think that’s a bit of revisionist history. They had a plan, some things work and some things don’t but they eventually got things working there.

They developed a plan that ran completely counter to the advise of numerous experts. For example, multiple military analyses said that dismissing Iraq’s military would be a mistake.

They employed cronies, novices, to run the transition.

Defending their “planning” is defending proven incompetence.

49 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:03:11pm

re: #33 Fozzie Bear
From you first link….

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks

Mind control!

50 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:03:36pm

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

I’m amazed that people are still defending Iraq war as though it wasn’t obviously an incredibly bad idea to anyone sane before it even began.

See previous post about our Patriotic Duty…

51 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:03:36pm

And don’t get me started on the Iraq is gonna git NUCULEAR WEAPONZOMG!!!

52 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:04:12pm

re: #48 Talking Point Detective

They developed a plan that ran completely counter to the advise of numerous experts


Experts rarely agree.

53 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:04:35pm

re: #49 Killgore Trout

From you first link…

Mind control!

More like subtle propaganda, same reason our current majority leader won’t call out the Birthers as idiots…

54 darthstar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:04:42pm

re: #47 SanFranciscoZionist

Sort of.

It was not by accident that so many people ended up believing that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 attacks in some way.

Hell, the Republicans can’t believe some of their people think President Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim…THEY take him at his word that he’s an American born Christian…but if others want to think otherwise, why is it their responsibility to correct them?

55 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:04:44pm

re: #33 Fozzie Bear

The Bush Administration absolutely repeatedly linked Iraq and 9/11.

Examples:
[Link: www.csmonitor.com…]

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]

President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week’s finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

There was no mention of a 9/11 connection, just an assertion that Saddam was in contact with Al Qaeda. Why is that so unbelievable?

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

The last link is more opinion than fact.

There’s mountains more where that came from.

I have yet to see where the Bush administration directly linked Saddam to 9/11.

The fact remains if that were so, we would have never heard the end of that in Congress and the Senate.

If it were true, it would have been an impeachable offense.

56 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:04:55pm

I would like to say that as soon as we did invade, what Powell said was true: We broke it, we bought it. We had, and have, a moral duty to attempt to put Iraq right. I don’t feel that we’ve executed that very well, but those people who wanted us to pull out of Iraq immediately after toppling Saddam were just as unrealistic as those who thought that we’d be greeted as liberators.

57 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:05:31pm

re: #49 Killgore Trout

From you first link…

Mind control!


Also….

This is not to say that Hussein has no link to terrorists. Over the years, terrorist leader Abu Nidal - who died in Baghdad last year - used Iraq as a sometime base. Terrorism experts also don’t rule out that some Al Qaeda fighters have slipped into Iraqi territory.
58 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:06:22pm

re: #56 Obdicut

I would like to say that as soon as we did invade, what Powell said was true: We broke it, we bought it. We had, and have, a moral duty to attempt to put Iraq right. I don’t feel that we’ve executed that very well, but those people who wanted us to pull out of Iraq immediately after toppling Saddam were just as unrealistic as those who thought that we’d be greeted as liberators.

Well said. Bravo!

59 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:06:23pm

re: #56 Obdicut

I would like to say that as soon as we did invade, what Powell said was true: We broke it, we bought it. We had, and have, a moral duty to attempt to put Iraq right. I don’t feel that we’ve executed that very well, but those people who wanted us to pull out of Iraq immediately after toppling Saddam were just as unrealistic as those who thought that we’d be greeted as liberators.

This is true.

60 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:06:25pm

re: #38 Fozzie Bear

The plan was to be greeted with flowers by the grateful citizenry after completely disbanding all government agencies, police force, and then… what?

1. Shock and Awe
2. ???
3. Democracy!!!

Don’t forget, the plan that the major hostilities would be over in “weeks, not months.”

61 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:06:35pm

re: #35 Locker

I find that impossible to believe. The minute the administration started talking about invading Iraq I KNEW it was bullshit.

How? I’m not that smart. Probably because it was FREAKING OBVIOUS! I do not understand the surprise or the “we never knew” stuff. We blew up everything the guy had in the first gulf war and then parked weapons inspectors in there until JUST before the invasion when we pulled them out while claiming Saddam threw them out.

Bullshit from the word go. You don’t redirect your forces from their primary mission to some non-threat. It’s stupid unless it’s just a distraction from not catching Bin Laden or payback for Dad or something.

THERE WAS NO REASON TO BE IN IRAQ!

Honestly? I knew we’d fucked up when the WMD didn’t emerge, and there was no surprise or response from the administration. No theories about where the stuff might be, or what was going on.

They proceeded according to plan, with absolutely no reaction to the fact that the key reason we’d gone in appeared to have been an enormous misapprehension.

62 darthstar  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:06:39pm

re: #55 researchok

I have yet to see where the Bush administration directly linked Saddam to 9/11.

Then relax. You don’t need to defend him. If that’s your litmus test for lying, then you have nothing to worry about. Bush was honest as Abraham Lincoln.

63 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:07:00pm

re: #28 researchok

Well, not exactly.

Firstly, no one in the Bush administration connected Saddam to 9/11.

This is completely untrue

64 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:07:09pm

re: #42 shecky

Hey, who were you gonna trust? Hans Blix, or Curveball?

Is there an option three?

65 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:07:29pm

re: #64 SanFranciscoZionist

Is there an option three?

Hans Brix.

66 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:07:39pm

re: #55 researchok

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]

There was no mention of a 9/11 connection, just an assertion that Saddam was in contact with Al Qaeda. Why is that so unbelievable?

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

The last link is more opinion than fact.

There’s mountains more where that came from.

I have yet to see where the Bush administration directly linked Saddam to 9/11.

The fact remains if that were so, we would have never heard the end of that in Congress and the Senate.

If it were true, it would have been an impeachable offense.

It is true and the example of “separation of church and state isn’t in the constitution” is a perfect example of the word games you are playing. You know the administration did everything it could to encourage people to link al qaeda and Saddam.

You’ve got the quotes, you’ve got the articles. Pretending differently is diengenuous.

67 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:07:48pm

re: #47 SanFranciscoZionist

Sort of.

It was not by accident that so many people ended up believing that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 attacks in some way.

Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, Yemen, etc, etc have contact with terrorist groups- always have.

Arew we supposed to believe Saddam didn’t?

68 makeitstop  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:07:55pm

re: #36 researchok

Where did Cheney say that?

Easy enough to find.

“Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.”

“But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning “more and more” about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.”

Link

69 philosophus invidius  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:08:32pm

If only those in the Bush administration had seen “Our Man in Havana”

70 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:09:01pm

re: #52 Killgore Trout

Experts rarely agree.

That’s true - but there is a lot of evidence that their methodology of vetting expert information was very, very lacking. Bush even went so far as to ridicule the notion of making decisions through a careful process of weighing contingencies.

71 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:09:36pm

re: #66 Locker

I have yet to see where the Bush administration directly linked Saddam to 9/11.

The fact remains if that were so, we would have never heard the end of that in Congress and the Senate.

If it were true, it would have been an impeachable offense.

It is true and the example of “separation of church and state isn’t in the constitution” is a perfect example of the word games you are playing. You know the administration did everything it could to encourage people to link al qaeda and Saddam.

You’ve got the quotes, you’ve got the articles. Pretending differently is diengenuous.

No, there are no quotes to that effect, only assertions that it was so.

I’m not the one pretending.

Further, if it really were so, why aren’t the Dems beating this to death?

72 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:09:44pm

re: #67 researchok

Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, Yemen, etc, etc have contact with terrorist groups- always have.

Arew we supposed to believe Saddam didn’t?

Sadam was a Secular Ruler and Al Qaeda was a Muslim movement.. why did we expect these two to get along?

73 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:10:04pm

re: #71 researchok

No, there are no quotes to that effect, only assertions that it was so.

I’m not the one pretending.

Further, if it really were so, why aren’t the Dems beating this to death?

I gave you a fucking quote man. Go read.

74 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:10:48pm

re: #73 Locker

I gave you a fucking quote man. Go read.

how quickly they forget, eh?

75 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:10:54pm

re: #71 researchok


Further, if it really were so, why aren’t the Dems beating this to death?

Because they are grown ups and don’t base all their decisions on what yields the most short-term political gain?

76 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:11:07pm

re: #72 jamesfirecat

Sadam was a Secular Ruler and Al Qaeda was a Muslim movement.. why did we expect these two to get along?

The irony that there was no Al Qaeda Iraq until they stepped into the power vacuum that arose after the occupation…

77 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:11:20pm

re: #68 makeitstop

Easy enough to find.

“Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.”

“But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning “more and more” about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.”

Link

Smart politics.

78 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:11:39pm

re: #74 WindUpBird

how quickly they forget, eh?

Yea who could be expected to remember for 32 whole comments.

79 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:12:19pm

re: #67 researchok

Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, Yemen, etc, etc have contact with terrorist groups- always have.

Arew we supposed to believe Saddam didn’t?

Are you suggesting we take as evidence the idea that other bad guys have contacts so all bad guys have contacts over other, more empirical information?

80 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:12:20pm

re: #77 researchok

Smart politics.

You just made their point.
;)

81 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:12:38pm

re: #75 iossarian

Because they are grown ups and don’t base all their decisions on what yields the most short-term political gain?

Asserting that there was a Saddam/911 connection is about a lot more than ‘short-term political gain.’

82 makeitstop  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:12:40pm

re: #77 researchok

Smart politics.

When Clinton did it, they called it ‘parsing.’ And as I remember, it was a really, really bad thing to do.

83 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:13:12pm

re: #71 researchok

No, there are no quotes to that effect, only assertions that it was so.

I’m not the one pretending.

Further, if it really were so, why aren’t the Dems beating this to death?

Because America is on its knees and a trial of a former President would break its head.

84 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:13:19pm

re: #80 Varek Raith

You just made their point.
;)

Yes- the report was widely discredited because there was no substance to it.

Cheney played them like a violin.

85 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:13:59pm

re: #55 researchok

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]

There was no mention of a 9/11 connection, just an assertion that Saddam was in contact with Al Qaeda. Why is that so unbelievable?

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

The last link is more opinion than fact.

There’s mountains more where that came from.

I have yet to see where the Bush administration directly linked Saddam to 9/11.

The fact remains if that were so, we would have never heard the end of that in Congress and the Senate.

If it were true, it would have been an impeachable offense.

Did they ever stand up and say “Saddam did 9/11”? No.

Did they repeatedly invoke 9/11 in the same breath with the need to invade Iraq? Yep.

Did they repeatedly state that there were links between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes.

Was this deliberately geared to convince the American public to accept that the invasion of Iraq was a necessary measure? I find it really, really hard to imagine that it wasn’t.

86 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:14:04pm

re: #82 makeitstop

When Clinton did it, they called it ‘parsing.’ And as I remember, it was a really, really bad thing to do.

Maybe- but politics is a pendulum.

Swings both ways.

87 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:14:49pm

re: #71 researchok

No, there are no quotes to that effect, only assertions that it was so.

I’m not the one pretending.

Further, if it really were so, why aren’t the Dems beating this to death?

So absence of reaction is evidence of absence of action?

88 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:15:27pm

re: #71 researchok

No, there are no quotes to that effect, only assertions that it was so.

I’m not the one pretending.

Further, if it really were so, why aren’t the Dems beating this to death?

because America is full of intellectually incurious people with no need for facts, and it politically wouldn’t work? I would say the majority of this country’s idea of foreign policy is still “Let’s turn the middle east into glass.” Derp de derp

So yeah, Dems can’t beat it to death, because the country won’t care, everyone’s opinion is calcified

89 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:15:42pm

re: #80 Varek Raith

You just made their point.
;)

Yep!

90 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:15:48pm

I’ve said this on another thread—we are talking about Saddam Hussein, not the Dali Lama (and condolences to him, by the way).

Varek’s point about our intelligence agencies has a lot of validity.

But when it comes to war—I’ll source from Sun Tzu, that no nation ever benefited from a protracted war. Once we went in, quickly (good strategy), we pulled back into a strategy that was not wise.

That’s the problem, our secondary strategy was very poor.

91 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:15:51pm

re: #85 SanFranciscoZionist

I have yet to see where the Bush administration directly linked Saddam to 9/11.

The fact remains if that were so, we would have never heard the end of that in Congress and the Senate.

If it were true, it would have been an impeachable offense.

Did they ever stand up and say “Saddam did 9/11”? No.

Did they repeatedly invoke 9/11 in the same breath with the need to invade Iraq? Yep.

Did they repeatedly state that there were links between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes.

Was this deliberately geared to convince the American public to accept that the invasion of Iraq was a necessary measure? I find it really, really hard to imagine that it wasn’t.

I couldn’t agree more.

They played the political game well. In the post 9/11 period, that wasn’t exactly hard to do.

92 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:15:51pm

re: #87 b_sharp

So absence of reaction is evidence of absence of action?

President goes in president goes out, never a miscommunication, you can’t explain that….

93 shecky  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:16:01pm

If you recall, there was a laundry list of reasons for invading Iraq. None particularly strong by themselves. We were treated to a continual dance, where one reason was given, then rebutted, and the talking point was moved on to the next reason. A process that went in circles for a while there.

I’ll repeat what I said in an earlier thread. This farce was helped by the fact that Americans were also simply itching for a fight. Hell, the neocons had a boner for Saddam before 9/11. The attack simply primed the popular pump for accepting their warmongering impulses.

94 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:16:17pm

re: #87 b_sharp

So absence of reaction is evidence of absence of action?

That logic, it’s a bitch

95 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:16:21pm

re: #67 researchok

Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, Yemen, etc, etc have contact with terrorist groups- always have.

Arew we supposed to believe Saddam didn’t?

So to clarify that the Bush administration never pinned 9/11 of Saddam, you draw connections between Saddam and other completely unrelated entities?

96 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:16:31pm

re: #65 Varek Raith

Hans Brix.

FUCK YOU, HANS BRIX!!!!!

//I watched Team America: World Police in a hipster neighborhood in San Francisco. Several people cheered when Blix went through the floor. I have never entirely figured out what the motivation there was.

97 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:16:37pm

I feel like there’s a lot of people walking around with broken bullshit detectors. Does anybody honestly believe that there wasn’t a concerted attempt by the Bush administration to conflate AQ and Iraq in the minds of the American people, in order to lend legitimacy to the invasion of Iraq?

98 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:16:55pm

re: #79 b_sharp

Are you suggesting we take as evidence the idea that other bad guys have contacts so all bad guys have contacts over other, more empirical information?

What I am suggesting is that it is naive to believe Saddam had no terror contacts.

99 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:17:05pm

re: #78 Locker

Yea who could be expected to remember for 32 whole comments.

Especially when their poor widdle GOP is getting beat up by the nasty liburls

100 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:17:48pm

re: #67 researchok

Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, Yemen, etc, etc have contact with terrorist groups- always have.

Arew we supposed to believe Saddam didn’t?

We know he did have contact with terrorist organizations. That’s not at question here.

101 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:17:49pm

re: #87 b_sharp

So absence of reaction is evidence of absence of action?

See SFZ 85

102 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:18:23pm

re: #79 b_sharp

Are you suggesting we take as evidence the idea that other bad guys have contacts so all bad guys have contacts over other, more empirical information?

This is exactly the kind of policy analysis that is being defended in this thread.

Seriously, the intelligence vetting process in the lead up to the invasion is inexcusable. It is beyond me how anyone can defend that incompetence. I don’t think the “Bush lied” claims can be proven. Their incompetence is easily proven.

103 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:18:51pm

re: #96 SanFranciscoZionist

FUCK YOU, HANS BRIX!!!

//I watched Team America: World Police in a hipster neighborhood in San Francisco. Several people cheered when Blix went through the floor. I have never entirely figured out what the motivation there was.

I think there are a lot of people in the US who, despite being quite liberal/progressive/whatever, hate the fact that a foreigner basically pointed out their country’s error.

104 engineer cat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:18:54pm

re: #93 shecky

This farce was helped by the fact that Americans were also simply itching for a fight. Hell, the neocons had a boner for Saddam before 9/11. The attack simply primed the popular pump for accepting their warmongering impulses.

lying
chauvism
war
disillusion
recession
repression
racism

it’s just one of those natural cycles of political life…

105 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:19:03pm

re: #97 Fozzie Bear

Does anybody honestly believe that there wasn’t a concerted attempt by the Bush administration to conflate AQ and Iraq in the minds of the American people, in order to lend legitimacy to the invasion of Iraq?

I don’t think it was a masterful devious mind control operation.

106 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:19:32pm

re: #72 jamesfirecat

Sadam was a Secular Ruler and Al Qaeda was a Muslim movement.. why did we expect these two to get along?

Hey, there was a cartoon!

107 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:19:58pm

re: #100 SanFranciscoZionist

We know he did have contact with terrorist organizations. That’s not at question here.

I know.

I do find fascinating though (from a clinical POV) as to just how vested some are in promulgating a thoroughly false meme.

You know, you really need to run for elected office.

The clarity thing.

108 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:20:35pm

re: #105 Killgore Trout

I don’t think it was a masterful devious mind control operation.

I don’t think you build very convincing strawman. Nobody said mind control. Disinformation and propaganda, yes, but not mind control.

109 aagcobb  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:20:43pm

I admit it, I was snowed at the time. A big part of the reason why I don’t believe any claim that comes from the Right anymore. If its not outright fabrication, its spin doctoring.

110 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:20:50pm

re: #83 jamesfirecat

Because America is on its knees and a trial of a former President would break its head.

That phrase really caught your attention, no?

111 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:20:58pm

re: #98 researchok

What I am suggesting is that it is naive to believe Saddam had no terror contacts.

What does that even mean? Did the U.S. have no “terror contact,” given our long-standing relationships with Saddam and Bin Laden?

The point is whether those “contacts” should have reasonably been used to justify an invasion that would in tens of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, trillions of U.S. dollars spent, the creation of a terrorist training ground and “cause celebre” for AQ.

112 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:21:14pm

re: #83 jamesfirecat

Because America is on its knees and a trial of a former President would break its head.

That’s quite a quote.

America isn’t on its knees. It may have a slight headache, or the start of a gas attack, but on its knees? Come on, get real.

113 HappyWarrior  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:21:27pm

re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist

Hey, there was a cartoon!

Heh, I’ve seen that before. Smigel’s a clever cartoonist.

114 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:21:35pm

re: #111 Talking Point Detective

What does that even mean? Did the U.S. have no “terror contact,” given our long-standing relationships with Saddam and Bin Laden?

The Saudis. Why does no-one ever mention the Saudis?

115 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:21:50pm

re: #110 SanFranciscoZionist

That phrase really caught your attention, no?

I have a low tolerance for people who try to undersell what America can and can’t withstand.

116 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:22:01pm

re: #114 iossarian

The Saudis. Why does no-one ever mention the Saudis?

Or Pakistan, for that matter.

117 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:22:34pm

re: #72 jamesfirecat

Sadam was a Secular Ruler and Al Qaeda was a Muslim movement.. why did we expect these two to get along?

Syria’s secular Assad is home to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.

118 HappyWarrior  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:23:10pm

re: #115 jamesfirecat

I have a low tolerance for people who try to undersell what America can and can’t withstand.

Reminds me of some words FDR used in his 1st inagural, everyone knows only thing we have to fear is fear itself but I like “This great nation will endure as it has endured.” And he was right.

119 CuriousLurker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:23:56pm

re: #91 researchok

I couldn’t agree more.

They played the political game well. In the post 9/11 period, that wasn’t exactly hard to do.

The game. Excuse me, but it it’s NOT A FUCKING GAME WHEN PEOPLE DIE AS A RESULT. Thousands of American troops have died. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi have died.

Fuck that smug, aren’t we clever game players who took advantage of the American people’s fear & pain attitude.

I’m out for the rest of the day. I can’t take this shit.

120 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:24:46pm
Cheney played them like a violin.

Really, that’s very strange reasoning to me.

Making statements deliberately geared to support misconceptions, so as to justify the invasion of another country at huge costs, is “playing [them] like a violin?” Who be “them?” The American public? Military casualties? Iraqi casualties?

121 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:24:50pm

re: #98 researchok

What I am suggesting is that it is naive to believe Saddam had no terror contacts.

Thankfully, facts don’t hinge on my naivety.

122 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:24:53pm

re: #111 Talking Point Detective

What does that even mean? Did the U.S. have no “terror contact,” given our long-standing relationships with Saddam and Bin Laden?

The point is whether those “contacts” should have reasonably been used to justify an invasion that would in tens of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, trillions of U.S. dollars spent, the creation of a terrorist training ground and “cause celebre” for AQ.

Who said we used those contacts to justify an invasion?

Look- If I give you a car to go to work ands you use that car to drive drunk and kill someone, don’t blame me for giving you the car.

123 Stanghazi  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:25:00pm

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

I’m amazed that people are still defending Iraq war as though it wasn’t obviously an incredibly bad idea to anyone sane before it even began.

It’s called saving face. Never ever admit you are wrong.

I hate it.

124 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:25:07pm

re: #98 researchok

What I am suggesting is that it is naive to believe Saddam had no terror contacts.

No one has said that Saddam had no terror contacts. We know about contacts he did have.

125 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:25:53pm

Why is there no mention of Saddam’s Iraqi victims? Generally, for truth, I never put faith in politicians. But there can be no question about Saddam’s horrible, sadistic, and treacherous nature. If he was still in power, the number of his victims would be rising at an alarming rate.

126 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:26:02pm

re: #119 CuriousLurker

The game. Excuse me, but it it’s NOT A FUCKING GAME WHEN PEOPLE DIE AS A RESULT. Thousands of American troops have died. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi have died.

Fuck that smug, aren’t we clever game players who took advantage of the American people’s fear & pain attitude.

I’m out for the rest of the day. I can’t take this shit.

This.

When hundreds of thousands of people die as a result, it’s not a fucking game, and it’s not just politics. Here’s some articles describing how the “game” of selling the war to the public was played.

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org…]
[Link: www.ajr.org…]
[Link: www.npr.org…]

127 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:27:21pm

re: #125 Bob Levin

Why is there no mention of Saddam’s Iraqi victims? Generally, for truth, I never put faith in politicians. But there can be no question about Saddam’s horrible, sadistic, and treacherous nature. If he was still in power, the number of his victims would be rising at an alarming rate.

So your hunch about what Saddam would be doing now trumps evidence? This is your argument?

128 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:27:36pm

re: #105 Killgore Trout

I don’t think it was a masterful devious mind control operation.

It was inexcusable incompetence, and an absolutely deliberate attempt to undermine any legitimate intelligence that undermined their pre-determined goals that were elaborated in numerous documents published well in advance of 9/11.

That you need to create a strawman shows a blaring weakness in your argument.

129 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:27:40pm

re: #125 Bob Levin

Why is there no mention of Saddam’s Iraqi victims? Generally, for truth, I never put faith in politicians. But there can be no question about Saddam’s horrible, sadistic, and treacherous nature. If he was still in power, the number of his victims would be rising at an alarming rate.

When do we invade Darfur?
Iran?
China?
Shit, most of Africa?

130 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:27:56pm

re: #101 researchok

See SFZ 85

I’m a pen and paper, rather than skin and bones, evidence kind of guy.

131 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:28:01pm

re: #121 b_sharp

Thankfully, facts don’t hinge on my naivety.

Let me offer up thisw for starters

Case Closed

132 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:28:28pm

re: #106 SanFranciscoZionist

Hey, there was a cartoon!

I should mention that the “Saddam and Osama” cartoon amuses me, not only because it’s hilarious, but also because I once observed a class which had two little boys named—Saddam and Osama.

They would get into trouble together a lot, and the teacher would yell at them. I think of them when I see that clip.

133 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:29:01pm

re: #122 researchok

Who said we used those contacts to justify an invasion?

Look- If I give you a car to go to work ands you use that car to drive drunk and kill someone, don’t blame me for giving you the car.

We? Are you saying that the Bush administration didn’t use those “contacts” to justify the invasion?

134 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:29:14pm

re: #127 Fozzie Bear

No, my argument is that he was a vile murdering man who continually tortured and maimed his people. I’m glad he isn’t doing that anymore.

135 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:29:45pm

re: #134 Bob Levin

But there is still torture in Iraq, there are still people who are taken away and never seen again.

That isn’t good.

136 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:30:03pm

re: #115 jamesfirecat

I have a low tolerance for people who try to undersell what America can and can’t withstand.

We’re pretty damn tough.

137 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:30:24pm

re: #108 Fozzie Bear

I don’t think you build very convincing strawman. Nobody said mind control. Disinformation and propaganda, yes, but not mind control.

Disinformation and propaganda are a type of hit and miss mind control. Hell, the right words in the right context can insert or modify memories.

138 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:30:27pm

re: #129 Varek Raith

That’s a reasonable point. I don’t have an answer to that. But, I think we should stand for something. In this case we did.

139 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:31:06pm

re: #130 b_sharp

I’m a pen and paper, rather than skin and bones, evidence kind of guy.

Report Details Saddam’s Terrorist Ties

140 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:31:25pm

re: #138 Bob Levin

That’s a reasonable point. I don’t have an answer to that. But, I think we should stand for something. In this case we did.

Yes, we stood for securing access to shitloads of oil.

141 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:31:44pm

re: #122 researchok

Who said we used those contacts to justify an invasion?

Look- If I give you a car to go to work ands you use that car to drive drunk and kill someone, don’t blame me for giving you the car.

Just so I can make sure I have this right.

The vice-president of the United States engages in a systematic effort to undermine solid evidence that runs contrary to his rationale for justifying an invasion, and you’re drawing a parallel to someone driving drunk in a loaner?

You’re saying that the fault lies with the American public for believing the Vice-president, rather than in the Vice-president for creating a failed policy based on faulty analysis?

142 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:32:05pm

re: #139 researchok

Your last couple of sources have been the New York Post and the Weekly Standard.

Not exactly stalwarts of good journalism.

143 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:32:18pm

re: #137 b_sharp

Disinformation and propaganda are a type of hit and miss mind control. Hell, the right words in the right context can insert or modify memories.

While it is true that the judicious use of propaganda can influence opinions and perceptions, KT’s use of the words “devious mind control operation” are a pretty ham-handed attempt to put a tinfoil hat on a straw man. I expect better from him.

144 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:32:19pm

re: #115 jamesfirecat

I have a low tolerance for people who try to undersell what America can and can’t withstand.

You really should have marked it as a quote.
I knew it was because I saw the original, but others may not have been so ‘lucky’.

145 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:32:56pm

re: #117 researchok

Syria’s secular Assad is home to Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.

Politics does make strange bedfellows. Which is one reason I tend to be dubious about people who insist that all jihadis have to follow Robert Spencer’s personal interpretation of the Unchangeable Rules of Islam.

Would that be Robert’s Rules of Islam?

146 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:33:11pm

re: #133 Talking Point Detective

We? Are you saying that the Bush administration didn’t use those “contacts” to justify the invasion?

Yes, we relied on 8 years of Clinton intelligence as well as other foreign intelligence reports. And we had the Iraqi who fabricated the WMD threat.

For starters.

147 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:33:16pm

re: #135 Obdicut

That’s true. I don’t have an answer to that. Well, I sort of have an answer. Saddam isn’t doing it anymore, so one day, it might end. You wouldn’t feel any better about the situation if he was still there, would you?

148 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:33:52pm

re: #128 Talking Point Detective

It was inexcusable incompetence, and an absolutely deliberate attempt to undermine any legitimate intelligence that undermined their pre-determined goals that were elaborated in numerous documents published well in advance of 9/11.

That you need to create a strawman shows a blaring weakness in your argument.

My point is that I don’t think it was a deliberate deception. The articles cited claiming that Bush carefully planted subliminal suggestions in his speeches is absurd.
Bush was not an evil monster hell bent on destruction. He was doing what he thought best. He was imperfect and I wasn’t a fan of the war either but these claims that he was intentionally hiding or manufacturing evidence are just stupid. There’s no difference between Michael Moore and Glenn Beck. Deranged talking points and conspiracies.

149 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:33:53pm

Hi everybody - finally emerging from a long high school wrestling season, a trip to see my parents, and several feet of snow.

150 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:33:55pm

re: #123 Stanley Sea

It’s called saving face. Never ever admit you are wrong.

I hate it.

Saving face? Or saving ass?

151 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:34:23pm

re: #144 b_sharp

You really should have marked it as a quote.
I knew it was because I saw the original, but others may not have been so ‘lucky’.

Sorry wasn’t quite sure how to properly quote something that came up in an entirely different conversation here it is in its original context…

152 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:34:54pm

re: #140 ralphieboy

Again it’s what you focus on. I don’t really care about the oil, it just goes on the open market and we buy it. I’m focused on the victims of Saddam.

153 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:35:04pm

re: #141 Talking Point Detective

Just so I can make sure I have this right.

The vice-president of the United States engages in a systematic effort to undermine solid evidence that runs contrary to his rationale for justifying an invasion, and you’re drawing a parallel to someone driving drunk in a loaner?

You’re saying that the fault lies with the American public for believing the Vice-president, rather than in the Vice-president for creating a failed policy based on faulty analysis?

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

I said no such thing.

In fact, neither have most Democrats in the House or Senate.

Or Bill Clinton who bombed Iraq precisely for the same reasons.

154 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:35:04pm

re: #123 Stanley Sea

It’s called saving face. Never ever admit you are wrong.

I hate it.

Yea we have one of those in the thread right now. Funny how little “research” and how much “Christine O’Donnell” is evident.

155 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:35:23pm

re: #143 Fozzie Bear

I expect better from him.

Sucker.

156 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:35:51pm

re: #142 Obdicut

Your last couple of sources have been the New York Post and the Weekly Standard.

Not exactly stalwarts of good journalism.

Where exactly are they wrong?

Both quote outside sources.

157 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:36:07pm

re: #127 Fozzie Bear

So your hunch about what Saddam would be doing now trumps evidence? This is your argument?

Not to mention the ‘we went in to save the people and punish a vicious dictator’ meme only reared its ugly head when no WMDs were found.

158 MinisterO  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:37:04pm

Now that the goalposts have been moved outside the stadium, I would like to point out that a lie by omission is still a lie.

159 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:37:24pm

re: #147 Bob Levin

Saddam isn’t doing it anymore, so one day, it might end.

Correct, Saddam was immortal, like the Highlander. We had to take him out or he’d have been there seven thousand years from now.

160 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:37:24pm

All the old angry memes from the left and the right are coming right back out of the closet. I just do not see how those help at all. Understanding we got lied to by curveball so we can learn better for next time makes sense. Recrimination is useless. Needlessly divisive among us lizards.

161 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:37:28pm

re: #125 Bob Levin

Why is there no mention of Saddam’s Iraqi victims? Generally, for truth, I never put faith in politicians. But there can be no question about Saddam’s horrible, sadistic, and treacherous nature. If he was still in power, the number of his victims would be rising at an alarming rate.

Saddam was a steel-plated murdering asshole. I do not think anyone (here) would deny that.

He was a steel-plated murdering asshole the whole time the U.S. supported him, too. So are a whole lot of people now in power who will remain in power because their countries are politically and geographically irrelevant to the First World (Zimbabwe, Burma), or too hard to take on (North Korea), or too useful (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan).

The Third World War has basically taken place in Africa this last twenty years, and the world didn’t blink.

I decline the ‘but Saddam was an asshole’ excuse. It’s true, but it’s not part of U.S. motivation for taking him out.

162 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:38:38pm

re: #159 goddamnedfrank

Correct, Saddam was immortal, like the Highlander. We had to take him out or he’d have been there seven thousand years from now.

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE NONE!

163 EastSider  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:39:01pm

re: #159 goddamnedfrank

Correct, Saddam was immortal, like the Highlander. We had to take him out or he’d have been there seven thousand years from now.

True story. If only we had an example of recent events where an autocratic, abusive leader of a Middle Eastern Nation was removed through relatively non-violent means, we could refute this alleged need for invasion in 2003. Hmmm, where we will find that.

164 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:39:19pm

re: #162 iceweasel

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE NONE!

Damn.
Beat me to it.
:(
/

165 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:39:21pm

re: #162 iceweasel

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE NONE!

Don’t make me go off on you.
//

How ya been?

166 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:39:25pm

re: #147 Bob Levin

Saddam isn’t doing it anymore, so, one day, it might end?

I’m sorry, I really don’t understand what you mean by that.

You wouldn’t feel any better about the situation if he was still there, would you?

Of course not. So what? I shed no tears for Saddam.

What I am asking is, given that there is still a corrupt judicial system in Iraq, since there were 2,500 civilians and 1,100 Iraqi cops, military personnel, etc, killed last year, given that Sharia law is encoded in the constitution, that women’s rights are eroded and severely under attack, are the Iraqis actually better off?

[Link: articles.sfgate.com…]

[Link: articles.cnn.com…]

Again: I think we have a responsibility towards Iraq. I don’t think we have actually fulfilled that obligation. I think that we have made it nigh-impossible to do so.

167 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:40:01pm

re: #159 goddamnedfrank

He had sons, and it looked to be a regime that would be passed from generation to generation. Psychotic to psychotic, mass murderer to mass murderer.

168 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:40:17pm

re: #148 Killgore Trout

My point is that I don’t think it was a deliberate deception. The articles cited claiming that Bush carefully planted subliminal suggestions in his speeches is absurd.
Bush was not an evil monster hell bent on destruction. He was doing what he thought best. He was imperfect and I wasn’t a fan of the war either but these claims that he was intentionally hiding or manufacturing evidence are just stupid. There’s no difference between Michael Moore and Glenn Beck. Deranged talking points and conspiracies.

I think Bush was doing what he thought was best.

I think that knowing what was best blinded him and his administration, since they wanted the invasion.

169 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:40:20pm

re: #152 Bob Levin

Again it’s what you focus on. I don’t really care about the oil, it just goes on the open market and we buy it. I’m focused on the victims of Saddam.


No, our national security depends on reliable access to cheap oil. that is why the oil companies regularly meet with the White House to discuss national energy policy, and these meetings are classified information.

In other words, they are a cartel divvying up the market and securing government cooperation to access their supplies.

And we decided that was worth fighting for.

170 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:40:44pm

re: #165 researchok

Don’t make me go off on you.
//

How ya been?

Hey! okay here, how are you? Jimmah is next to me and says hi. :)

171 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:40:45pm

re: #160 Rightwingconspirator

All the old angry memes from the left and the right are coming right back out of the closet. I just do not see how those help at all. Understanding we got lied to by curveball so we can learn better for next time makes sense. Recrimination is useless. Needlessly divisive among us lizards.

You have a point, but I disagree with the last sentence. Better that it be hashed out. It’s not going away.

172 CarleeCork  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:40:50pm

re: #157 b_sharp

Not to mention the ‘we went in to save the people and punish a vicious dictator’ meme only reared its ugly head when no WMDs were found.


Don’t forget the ‘spreading democracy’ excuse.

173 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:41:26pm

The Bush Administration never drew any connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attackers!
And if they did the Democrats did it too!
And if they did it’s because IT WAS TRUE!

That about cover the arguments we are seeing here?

174 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:41:32pm

re: #166 Obdicut

Saddam isn’t doing it anymore, so, one day, it might end?

I’m sorry, I really don’t understand what you mean by that.

Of course not. So what? I shed no tears for Saddam.

What I am asking is, given that there is still a corrupt judicial system in Iraq, since there were 2,500 civilians and 1,100 Iraqi cops, military personnel, etc, killed last year, given that Sharia law is encoded in the constitution, that women’s rights are eroded and severely under attack, are the Iraqis actually better off?

[Link: articles.sfgate.com…]

[Link: articles.cnn.com…]

Again: I think we have a responsibility towards Iraq. I don’t think we have actually fulfilled that obligation. I think that we have made it nigh-impossible to do so.

I think the best chance we have at this point is something I saw someone suggest in jest once, make Iraq and Afghanistan states….

175 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:41:40pm

re: #169 ralphieboy

I’m not focused on the goverment, I’m focused on Saddam’s victims.

176 Stanghazi  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:41:44pm

Whatever happened to the pallet loads of cash Bremer?

177 EastSider  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:42:14pm

re: #167 Bob Levin

He had sons, and it looked to be a regime that would be passed from generation to generation. Psychotic to psychotic, mass murderer to mass murderer.

Again, I’m still looking for an example of a Middle Eastern Leader, with sons in place, who was abusive in an autocratic system, that was deposed through relatively non-violent means. Where will we find that? How could it ever be possible?

/

178 MinisterO  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:42:38pm

re: #160 Rightwingconspirator

All the old angry memes from the left and the right are coming right back out of the closet. I just do not see how those help at all. Understanding we got lied to by curveball so we can learn better for next time makes sense. Recrimination is useless. Needlessly divisive among us lizards.

Finally a product for me! I believe every word that man just said because it’s exactly what I wanted to hear. —space ghost

179 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:42:46pm

re: #167 Bob Levin

He had sons, and it looked to be a regime that would be passed from generation to generation. Psychotic to psychotic, mass murderer to mass murderer.

Mubarak has sons, your argument is invalid.

180 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:42:48pm

re: #167 Bob Levin

He had sons, and it looked to be a regime that would be passed from generation to generation. Psychotic to psychotic, mass murderer to mass murderer.

When they were killed, there was much rejoicing in Iraq.

181 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:43:12pm

re: #156 researchok

Where exactly are they wrong?

Both quote outside sources.

I’m sorry, but do you really think that the claim that there were extensive operational contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda is correct? I can’t tell from the way you’re presenting things.

182 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:43:16pm

re: #170 iceweasel

Hey! okay here, how are you? Jimmah is next to me and says hi. :)

Tell J hey!

Hope all is well.

So, what can we fight about?
//

I will say this, civil discourse really is all it’s cracked up to be.

183 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:43:26pm

re: #173 Locker

The Bush Administration never drew any connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attackers!
And if they did the Democrats did it too!
And if they did it’s because IT WAS TRUE!

That about cover the arguments we are seeing here?

hahaha yeah, pretty much, political delusions are really something to behold, aren’t they? :D

184 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:43:53pm

re: #172 CarleeCork

Don’t forget the ‘spreading democracy’ excuse.

And there is always the “Government telling people what to eat because they can’t have pork” argument. Commonly referred to as MichelleO dietary fascism!

185 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:43:58pm

re: #166 Obdicut

I shed no tears for Saddam.

That’s all I’m saying. We are not talking about the Dali Lama.

Again: I think we have a responsibility towards Iraq. I don’t think we have actually fulfilled that obligation. I think that we have made it nigh-impossible to do so.

You might be correct.

186 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:44:56pm

re: #139 researchok

Report Details Saddam’s Terrorist Ties

The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda**.

Bolding mine.

187 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:45:03pm

Here is some news:


From today’s FT (excerpt)

JPMorgan revamps military mortgage programs

By Francesco Guerrera and Justin Baer in New York
Published: February 15 2011 18:37 | Last updated: February 15 2011 18:37
Jamie Dimon on Tuesday apologised for wrongly foreclosing on homes owned by US soldiers and announced an overhaul of the way JPMorgan Chase deals with military personnel in an effort to quash political criticism of its practices.

188 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:45:14pm

re: #185 Bob Levin

That’s all I’m saying. We are not talking about the Dali Lama.

So what? Nobody is saying we are. This seems to be a completely irrelevant statement. Nobody, at all, is saying that Saddam was the Dali Lama, or that Saddam wasn’t an evil tosser.

189 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:45:38pm

re: #175 Bob Levin

I’m not focused on the goverment, I’m focused on Saddam’s victims.


America is still way too over-focused on oil. Without that focus, the politics of the Middle East would be much more irrelevant to us.

190 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:46:19pm

re: #181 Obdicut

I’m sorry, but do you really think that the claim that there were extensive operational contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda is correct? I can’t tell from the way you’re presenting things.

Lotta tapdancing goin’ on a-heyah

191 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:46:27pm

re: #181 Obdicut

I’m sorry, but do you really think that the claim that there were extensive operational contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda is correct? I can’t tell from the way you’re presenting things.

I go by what I read.

Now, I do not believe there were ongoing operational contacts between Saddam and AQ.

That said, it is clear there was an ongoing relationship- which really doesn’t surprise me. If either Saddam or AQ could use each other to upset us or the west in general I do believe they could count on each for support, in either material or political ways. They didn’t need to be in bed with each other for that.

192 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:46:29pm

re: #143 Fozzie Bear

While it is true that the judicious use of propaganda can influence opinions and perceptions, KT’s use of the words “devious mind control operation” are a pretty ham-handed attempt to put a tinfoil hat on a straw man. I expect better from him.

You have better eyes for seeing tinfoil hats than me, I stand, sit and recline corrected.

193 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:46:29pm

And dictators like Saddam, Chavez, Khaddafi or the Hause of Saud would not be able to remain in power without the money they earn selling us oil.

194 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:46:34pm

That’s all I’m saying, we’re not talking about Justin Bieber.

195 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:47:31pm

re: #168 SanFranciscoZionist

I think Bush was doing what he thought was best.

I think that knowing what was best blinded him and his administration, since they wanted the invasion.

That’s possible. Iraq was an on going problem that would certainly still be going on today. I can understand the urge to solve them problem. I think it would have been infinitely easier to kick the can down the road and let future administration deal with the problem of Iraq.

196 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:47:36pm

re: #177 EastSider

With Facebook and Twitter, which weren’t invented yet. Plus, Egypt’s military was not going to fire on the population. Saddam would have had no qualms about this. He did it to the Kurds. Mubarak and Saddam were not alike in that respect. Mubarak was repressive, he wasn’t a genocidal maniac.

197 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:47:40pm

re: #191 researchok

I go by what I read.

Now, I do not believe there were ongoing operational contacts between Saddam and AQ.

Then why did you cite an article making that claim?

That said, it is clear there was an ongoing relationship- which really doesn’t surprise me.

Why do you say it is ‘clear’?

If either Saddam or AQ could use each other to upset us or the west in general I do believe they could count on each for support, in either material or political ways.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you provide an example of some time this occurred?

198 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:47:41pm

re: #148 Killgore Trout

My point is that I don’t think it was a deliberate deception. The articles cited claiming that Bush carefully planted subliminal suggestions in his speeches is absurd.
Bush was not an evil monster hell bent on destruction. He was doing what he thought best. He was imperfect and I wasn’t a fan of the war either but these claims that he was intentionally hiding or manufacturing evidence are just stupid. There’s no difference between Michael Moore and Glenn Beck. Deranged talking points and conspiracies.

I don’t think that he was an evil monster hell bent on destruction, and I don’t think that anyone here has said that he was.

There are some facts that remain, however:

He launched a war while being ignorant of the region. For example, there is solid evidence that he didn’t even know much at all about the existence of different sects of Islam.

His administration cherry-picked evidence to support pre-determined goals. This is also easily documented. They also systematically went about undermining evidence presented that contradicted their rationale, and undermining those who would present such evidence.

He clearly presented the case to the American public that there was no question as to whether or not Saddam presented an eminent threat to the U.S. - you don’t have to think that they “manufactured evidence” to realize that they presented a misleading picture.

Their process of policy development stunk from top to bottom. They employed cronies and complete non-experts to fulfill key positions. They failed to adapt their policies despite abundant evidence of their failures. The continuously mislead the public about the level of progress.

None of that is excusable at any level in my book.

199 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:47:55pm

re: #188 Obdicut

So what? Nobody is saying we are. This seems to be a completely irrelevant statement. Nobody, at all, is saying that Saddam was the Dali Lama, or that Saddam wasn’t an evil tosser.

True the source of this “discussion” is the false assertion that the Bush Administration didn’t try to link Saddam to al qaeda. I think we are all in agreement that he is a douche.

200 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:48:15pm

re: #186 b_sharp

Bolding mine.

Exactly my point! No one ever said there was that kindiof relationship.

No one in the Bush administration directly connected Saddam to 9/11.

They may have politicized the relationship but no more.

201 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:48:43pm

re: #189 ralphieboy

America is still way too over-focused on oil. Without that focus, the politics of the Middle East would be much more irrelevant to us.

Disagree. It’s a small world, and the US has been involved in the region for decades. Simply deciding to ignore it wouldn’t make it go away, or become irrelevant.

202 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:49:47pm

re: #188 Obdicut

So we are talking about a government, governments that don’t do things for altruistic reasons? That’s the gist? That’s wallpaper.

203 engineer cat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:50:19pm

isn’t that spayshul!

Suggested by the author:

- Is MSNBC good for America?

- MSNBC the channel of insane liberal hatred

- Man sentenced for threatening member of Congress, claims he watched too much MSNBC

Continue reading on Examiner.com: MSNBC’s O’Donnell attacks Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, Fox viewers - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com [Link: www.examiner.com…]

fair and balanced! fair and balanced! squawk!

204 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:50:25pm

re: #195 Killgore Trout

That’s possible. Iraq was an on going problem that would certainly still be going on today. I can understand the urge to solve them problem. I think it would have been infinitely easier to kick the can down the road and let future administration deal with the problem of Iraq.

That really is a poor excuse for the incompetence of their policy development processes, the policies they ultimately developed, and the clearly misleading ways that they sold their policies to the American public.

205 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:50:29pm

re: #146 researchok

Yes, we relied on 8 years of Clinton intelligence as well as other foreign intelligence reports. And we had the Iraqi who fabricated the WMD threat.

For starters.

Seriously, it can’t be a conservative administration’s fault, it has to be because of a liberal.

206 justaminute  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:50:37pm

I think this is only a surprise to Americans. Some times American foreign policy in the Middle East makes me feel like I live in a nation of “Erkels” and his famous statement “Did I do that?”

207 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:51:06pm

I have to run now. Thanks for the discussion everyone, later y’all.

208 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:51:44pm

re: #202 Bob Levin

So we are talking about a government, governments that don’t do things for altruistic reasons? That’s the gist? That’s wallpaper.

I’m totally lost with whatever it is you’re saying. What I’m saying is that Saddam’s badness has nothing at all to do with why we invaded, and, given that the current situation in Iraq is pretty fucking terrible, it’s not even a post-facto reason to have invaded.

209 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:51:53pm

“The smoking gun may come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

Nope, no deliberate push to scare the American people into supporting an invasion here. That’s just sound analysis. (Never mind that there was never any evidence that Hussein was anywhere near having a functioning nuclear weapon.)

210 EastSider  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:51:55pm

I am somewhat surprised at how the conversation quickly turned into:

Speaker 1: “But we should have gone anyway, even if we knew they didn’t have WMDs, for the following reasons: X, Y, Z”

Speaker 2: [Easy and ironclad refutation of reasons X, Y and Z]

I thought we would be talking more about the process by which this country “declares war” (even though we don’t officially do that anymore) and whether or not it needs to be updated to reflect the speed and cost of 21st century warfare.

I for one think there should be quarterly Congressional reviews of any overseas military action that costs more than say $1B/month. Much more scrutiny into contractors would be nice, too.

211 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:51:58pm

re: #198 Talking Point Detective

He launched a war while being ignorant of the region. For example, there is solid evidence that he didn’t even know much at all about the existence of different sects of Islam.


C’mon. seriously? It shit like this that makes me tune out. Bush had briefings with the NSA, CIA, military strategists etc. With the entire resources of the country at his disposal are you claiming he didn’t know there are different religious and ethnic sects in the country?
Can you provide the “solid evidence” you have for this claim?

212 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:52:14pm

re: #171 wrenchwench

Sure, that’s best, but honestly I had thought this to be well covered ground already. Particularly the partisan angles.

213 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:52:38pm

re: #197 Obdicut

Then why did you cite an article making that claim?

Why do you say it is ‘clear’?

I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you provide an example of some time this occurred?

See the linksw I provided earlier.

They both quote outside sources.

See this as well. The bibliography is interesting.

214 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:53:02pm

re: #191 researchok

I go by what I read.

Now, I do not believe there were ongoing operational contacts between Saddam and AQ.

That said, it is clear there was an ongoing relationship- which really doesn’t surprise me. If either Saddam or AQ could use each other to upset us or the west in general I do believe they could count on each for support, in either material or political ways. They didn’t need to be in bed with each other for that.

The problem is that the Bush administration sold their policies on the basis of such speculation w/o supporting evidence. That is an absolutely terrible way to develop policies which have geo-political and domestic impact on the scale of the invasion of Iraq. “I do believe” really doesn’t cut it.

215 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:53:39pm

re: #201 imp_62

Disagree. It’s a small world, and the US has been involved in the region for decades. Simply deciding to ignore it wouldn’t make it go away, or become irrelevant.


We had a warning shot fired across our bows in 1973. We chose to ignore it.
In the 80’s we had Iraq and Iran fighting a war and selling oil as fast as they could pump it at rock-bottom prices, so we lost another decade.

It is not a matter of “ignoring” it, it is a matter of adopting an active policy to end our economic and political involvement in an unstable and backward part of the world.

216 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:54:00pm

re: #151 jamesfirecat

Sorry wasn’t quite sure how to properly quote something that came up in an entirely different conversation here it is in its original context…

All you have to do is separate it somehow from your comments and mention that it is a quote. Nothing too involved.

217 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:54:36pm

re: #211 Killgore Trout

C’mon. seriously? It shit like this that makes me tune out. Bush had briefings with the NSA, CIA, military strategists etc. With the entire resources of the country at his disposal are you claiming he didn’t know there are different religious and ethnic sects in the country?
Can you provide the “solid evidence” you have for this claim?

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites. Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

218 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:54:42pm

re: #209 Fozzie Bear

“The smoking gun may come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

and that mushroom cloud would sport a black beret and moustache….

219 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:54:45pm

re: #211 Killgore Trout

C’mon. seriously? It shit like this that makes me tune out. Bush had briefings with the NSA, CIA, military strategists etc. With the entire resources of the country at his disposal are you claiming he didn’t know there are different religious and ethnic sects in the country?
Can you provide the “solid evidence” you have for this claim?

Here you go:

Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

220 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:56:43pm

Hey guys, we all know Hussein bought yellowcake Uranium because of that convincing document obvious forgery cited by the administration. You can tell they were really serious about the evidence by the way they outed the wives of CIA analysts who publicly pointed out that the documents being cited in front of the UN and the American people were obvious fakes. That’s just good leadership.

If you can’t savage your own intelligence assets in the rush to war, what can you do?

221 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:57:19pm

re: #211 Killgore Trout

C’mon. seriously? It shit like this that makes me tune out. Bush had briefings with the NSA, CIA, military strategists etc. With the entire resources of the country at his disposal are you claiming he didn’t know there are different religious and ethnic sects in the country?
Can you provide the “solid evidence” you have for this claim?

You’re missing the point.

Bush has to be stupid and he has to be evil.

Not in the real world or political world, of course, but the meme must survive.

222 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:57:45pm

re: #221 researchok

You’re missing the point.

Bush has to be stupid and he has to be evil.

Not in the real world or political world, of course, but the meme must survive.

Hahaha desperate.

223 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:57:48pm

re: #212 Rightwingconspirator

Sure, that’s best, but honestly I had thought this to be well covered ground already. Particularly the partisan angles.

220 mostly on-topic comments in an hour and a half indicate otherwise.

224 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:58:23pm

re: #215 ralphieboy

We had a warning shot fired across our bows in 1973. We chose to ignore it.
In the 80’s we had Iraq and Iran fighting a war and selling oil as fast as they could pump it at rock-bottom prices, so we lost another decade.

It is not a matter of “ignoring” it, it is a matter of adopting an active policy to end our economic and political involvement in an unstable and backward part of the world.

You stated that the politics of the region would become “irrelevant” if the US became less dependent on oil. I disagree with that, and you do not support that position with this post. Decreased dependence on oil would change the face of US political engagement in the Middle East, but would not lead to irrelevance.

225 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:58:35pm

re: #211 Killgore Trout

C’mon. seriously? It shit like this that makes me tune out. Bush had briefings with the NSA, CIA, military strategists etc. With the entire resources of the country at his disposal are you claiming he didn’t know there are different religious and ethnic sects in the country?
Can you provide the “solid evidence” you have for this claim?

[Link: www.outsidethebeltway.com…]

226 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:58:36pm

re: #213 researchok

See the linksw I provided earlier.

They both quote outside sources.
/blockquote>

I saw the links you provided earlier. None of them detail any actual operations together, or any support provided to each other. In fact, if you read about the history of Al Queda and Hussein, you’ll find they were opposed to each other. There was no operational tie.

So says the Pentagon.


Saddamn’s use of terror was almost exclusively on his own citizens, to keep his grip on power.

227 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:58:42pm

re: #220 Fozzie Bear

Hey guys, we all know Hussein bought yellowcake Uranium because of that convincing document obvious forgery cited by the administration. You can tell they were really serious about the evidence by the way they outed the wives of CIA analysts who publicly pointed out that the documents being cited in front of the UN and the American people were obvious fakes. That’s just good leadership.

If you can’t savage your own intelligence assets in the rush to war, what can you do?

The obvious forgery bought by the administration and other foreign governments and intelligence agencies?

That forgery?

228 EastSider  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:59:24pm

re: #221 researchok

You’re missing the point.

Bush has to be stupid and he has to be evil.

Not in the real world or political world, of course, but the meme must survive.

If the choices are stupid or evil, I would think the stalwart Bush supporters would be choosing stupid. Somehow “Fearmongering Warlord” doesn’t synch with mom & apple pie.

229 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:59:25pm

re: #221 researchok

You’re missing the point.

Bush has to be stupid and he has to be evil.

Not in the real world or political world, of course, but the meme must survive.

This is yet another straw man. Nobody here said he was stupid/evil. There are other possibilities that don’t include the president being some kind of monster. A better phrase might be “gross incompetence” or “dissembling in the service of a perceived greater good”.

230 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:59:28pm

re: #170 iceweasel

Hey! okay here, how are you? Jimmah is next to me and says hi. :)

Poke him in the ribs for me.

His mere existence on LGF got me to take a harder look at my Scottish ancestry and now I’m hooked on Scotch.

My grandfather would be so proud.

231 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 12:59:48pm

re: #226 Obdicut

Well, I messed up the blockquote.

you should be able to read it okay anyway.

232 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:00:12pm

re: #219 goddamnedfrank

Thanks for the link but the author of the book might not be the most reliable source of information….
Norway Exposes Peter Galbraith Scandal

it appears that Peter Galbraith, partisan pundit and long an advocate for Kurdish independence and a frequent witness in Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Iraq, had a serious conflict of interest as he stood to gain millions of dollars from Kurdish independence.

Here is the Google translation of the Norwegian press. More here.

And, a very good summary from Reidar Visser’s blog (replete with a photo of Galbraith running away from journalists).

My understanding from the journalist who has been pursuing this story is that there is more to come.

233 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:00:16pm

re: #226 Obdicut

As Craxi explained in an October 14, 1985 UPI story: “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.” Seeing that this terrorist traveled as a credentialed Iraqi diplomat, the Italian authorities let Abbas flee to Yugoslavia. After political parties furiously withdrew from Craxi’s coalition, the Italian government collapsed. 11

234 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:00:19pm

re: #227 researchok

The obvious forgery bought by the administration and other foreign governments and intelligence agencies?

The foreign governments that the US was pressuring to support their plan for war well before all the evidence was in? Those foreign governments?

235 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:00:22pm

re: #211 Killgore Trout

True, the evidence for that claim isn’t sufficiently solid.

I’m looking for an interview I heard with an oil executive who detailed some statements by the Bush administration which showed a shocking ignorance about the region - not sure I can find it, though.

Still, it is entirely clear that their plan completely failed to account for the level of hostility that would erupt between the Sunnis and the Shiites - and once again, they systematically undermined experts from the State Department who tried to clue them in to the complexities of the region.

236 engineer cat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:00:54pm

if you watch the food channel, the smoking loon goes with a mushroom soup

237 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:01:16pm

re: #233 researchok

1985?

Al Queda wasn’t even formed then.

238 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:01:21pm

re: #224 imp_62

You stated that the politics of the region would become “irrelevant” if the US became less dependent on oil. I disagree with that, and you do not support that position with this post. Decreased dependence on oil would change the face of US political engagement in the Middle East, but would not lead to irrelevance.

I said “more irrelevant”, as in less relevant. As in we would not be spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the region.

We will continue to be involved in any part of the world that affects us, which is pretty much everywhere, but we are way too dependent on the Middle East for its resources, and it is starting to cost us dearly.

239 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:01:30pm

re: #234 iossarian

The foreign governments that the US was pressuring to support their plan for war well before all the evidence was in? Those foreign governments?

Right- they all agreed to bow to pressure from the US so they might enter what would be an unpopular war and home and possibly lose the next elections.

Right.

240 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:01:42pm

re: #221 researchok

You’re missing the point.

Bush has to be stupid and he has to be evil.

Not in the real world or political world, of course, but the meme must survive.

Look - Kilgore’s response was to me, and at no point did I say that Bush was evil or stupid. I did say that their plans showed a distinct ignorance of the region. Do you really question that?

241 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:03:25pm

re: #239 researchok

Right- they all agreed to bow to pressure from the US so they might enter what would be an unpopular war and home and possibly lose the next elections.

Right.

This is more or less exactly what happened in the UK, in fact, so thanks for pointing that out.

Labour lost a lot of support from its base due to their perceived part in the deception leading up to the Iraq war. A lot of those voters switched to the Liberal Democrats, leading to the current coalition (and incidentally a lot of buyer’s remorse for those voters).

242 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:03:44pm

re: #237 Obdicut

1985?

Al Queda wasn’t even formed then.

We were talking about Saddam and terror.

Still, there is this (quoting outside sources)

243 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:04:40pm

re: #238 ralphieboy

Can we agree on “a shift in policy focus which would lead a different set of regional issues to be newly relevant”?

244 Killgore Trout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:05:25pm

re: #225 recusancy
From you link….


While I don’t doubt the central thesis that Bush is not particularly intellectually curious, it’s almost inconceivable that anyone–let alone a man whose father was CIA Director, Vice President, and President–would not at least be aware of something so basic. The Sunni-Shia split has been on the public radar screen since the Iran Hostage Crisis, which kicked off November 4, 1979. I knew that there was such a thing as a Shiite when I was 14.

UPDATE: Commenter Dave E found two Bush speeches from the fall of 2002 where he used the terminology. Most significant was his UN Speech to rally support for action against Saddam, which contained this line: “If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.”

Granting that someone else actually wrote the speeches and merely uttering the words doesn’t prove that Bush internalized the distinctions, it does at least prove he was aware of the existence of the two sects by the time Galbraith claims otherwise.


Rawstory came to the same conclusion. It’s not a credible claim, it’s just something somebody put in a book.

245 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:05:38pm

re: #227 researchok

The obvious forgery bought by the administration and other foreign governments and intelligence agencies?

That forgery?

Yeah. The one our we told our allies was airtight. The one that had more than 20 anomalies in it including signatures of people who had been dead for decades, days of the week not matching the date, and formatting of the document not matching others of the same vintage from Nigeria. The one that our own intelligence agencies said was fraudulent, before the invasion. The one that CIA director Tenet directly told the Administration NOT to reference, before the Bush administration publicly did so anyway. That document.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

It strains credibility to the extreme to believe that anyone was fooled by that piece of crap cited as evidence.

246 Coracle  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:06:02pm

researchok, Im really not sure what case you’re trying to make.

I understand and agree with “You break it, you bought it.”

But really, do you honestly believe that whatever truths were buried under the lies sold to the US people and congress were sufficient justification for the war in Iraq? Without the lies, we have the similar if not stronger justification to go into Syria, and Lebanon, and Saudi, for that matter. Why aren’t you advocating that?

247 EastSider  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:06:36pm

re: #241 iossarian

This is more or less exactly what happened in the UK, in fact, so thanks for pointing that out.

Labour lost a lot of support from its base due to their perceived part in the deception leading up to the Iraq war. A lot of those voters switched to the Liberal Democrats, leading to the current coalition (and incidentally a lot of buyer’s remorse for those voters).

I for one am shocked to find that the people who have a drastically unrealistic interpretation of the events leading up to the invasion from a US point of view are unaware/ignorant of the events and political ramifications of the same event in other countries. Simply stunning.

/

248 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:06:38pm

re: #245 Fozzie Bear

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

249 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:07:34pm

btw, has anybody heard from Walter since he came back from France?

250 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:07:57pm

re: #243 imp_62

Can we agree on “a shift in policy focus which would lead a different set of regional issues to be newly relevant”?

Sounds fine.

Face it: the Middle East is a politically unstable, socially backward part of the world.

Our dependence on their resources makes it difficult for us to put any sort of pressure, such as economic, social or diplomatic, on them to reform and modernize.

The less we have to do with that region the better.

251 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:08:27pm

re: #242 researchok

We were talking about Saddam and terror.

No, we weren’t. We were talking about Saddam and Al Queda. Nobody, at all, has denied that Saddam had terror connections. At all.

I have no idea why you think they have. Look through the thread.

252 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:09:02pm

re: #249 imp_62

btw, has anybody heard from Walter since he came back from France?

Yawn.

253 Alexzander  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:09:12pm

re: #249 imp_62

btw, has anybody heard from Walter since he came back from France?

Not sure if serious.

254 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:09:49pm

re: #246 Coracle

researchok, Im really not sure what case you’re trying to make.

I understand and agree with “You break it, you bought it.”

But really, do you honestly believe that whatever truths were buried under the lies sold to the US people and congress were sufficient justification for the war in Iraq? Without the lies, we have the similar if not stronger justification to go into Syria, and Lebanon, and Saudi, for that matter. Why aren’t you advocating that?

All I am saying is that I do not believe the Bush administration willingly deceived anyone.

If they had we would never hear the end of it from the Dems in Congress, the Senate, or Bill Clinton.

Very few if any in positions of power or influence are pushing that meme.

If the evidence is so incontrovertible, ask yourself why that is.

255 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:10:01pm

re: #252 Walter L. Newton

Yawn.

Is that an Eiffel Tower in your avatar, or are you just pleased to be back?

256 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:11:02pm

re: #254 researchok

All I am saying is that I do not believe the Bush administration willingly deceived anyone.

If they had we would never hear the end of it from the Dems in Congress, the Senate, or Bill Clinton.

Very few if any in positions of power or influence are pushing that meme.

If the evidence is so incontrovertible, ask yourself why that is.

I’ll be back with your “Team Stupid” gigantic foam hand…

257 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:11:06pm

re: #28 researchok

Well, not exactly.

Firstly, no one in the Bush administration connected Saddam to 9/11.

Secondly, the fact that WMD manufacturing equipment was found hidden and buried (as opposed to destroyed or non existent as claimed) only bears Clinton out.

Saddam was a threat.

BOLD is what we are talking about.

258 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:11:23pm

re: #251 Obdicut

No, we weren’t. We were talking about Saddam and Al Queda. Nobody, at all, has denied that Saddam had terror connections. At all.

I have no idea why you think they have. Look through the thread.

Try this:

There Is a C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-O-N
Spelling out what we know about the pre-Iraq-war terror world.

259 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:11:39pm

re: #250 ralphieboy

Sounds fine.

Face it: the Middle East is a politically unstable, socially backward part of the world.

Our dependence on their resources makes it difficult for us to put any sort of pressure, such as economic, social or diplomatic, on them to reform and modernize.

The less we have to do with that region the better.

The underlying assumption that the US has ever cared about reformation and modernization of ME societies is on shaky ground. I don’t think that US policy was ever focused on much more than securing oil flow. But that engagement contains a huge policy “nut” of maintaining regional stability, regardless of the nature of individual regimes. That’s how we end up in bed with Wahhabites.

260 reine.de.tout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:11:43pm

re: #239 researchok

Right- they all agreed to bow to pressure from the US so they might enter what would be an unpopular war and home and possibly lose the next elections.

Right.

And somehow those UN resolutions have been forgotten, it seems to me.

261 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:12:25pm

re: #252 Walter L. Newton

Yawn.

Welcome. Hope you had fun —

262 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:12:30pm

re: #257 Locker

BOLD is what we are talking about.

Who made the direct connection.

263 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:13:04pm

re: #179 goddamnedfrank

Mubarak has sons, your argument is invalid.

Mubarak was never on a par with Saddam, to be entirely fair to the old bastard.

264 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:13:09pm

re: #258 researchok

I’m sorry, but you said that you don’t believe that there were operational ties between Saddam and Al Queda.

Yet you keep linking to articles alleging that.

Can you explain why?

The Pentagon report, which I feel is more credible than an article from NRO, the New York Post, or The Weekly Standard, has concluded there was no working relationship between Saddam and Al Queda.

265 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:13:10pm

re: #260 reine.de.tout

And somehow those UN resolutions have been forgotten, it seems to me.

SHHHH!!!

You’ll wake reality!

266 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:13:15pm

re: #255 iossarian

Is that an Eiffel Tower in your avatar, or are you just pleased to be back?

That’s a picture I took of the Tour in 2007.

267 Locker  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:13:18pm

re: #262 researchok

Who made the direct connection.

Ok there Christine O’Donnell. Sell it to someone who’ll buy it.

268 EastSider  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:14:00pm

re: #254 researchok

All I am saying is that I do not believe the Bush administration willingly deceived anyone.

If they had we would never hear the end of it from the Dems in Congress, the Senate, or Bill Clinton.

Very few if any in positions of power or influence are pushing that meme.

If the evidence is so incontrovertible, ask yourself why that is.

I think you’re wrong, and I think you underestimate the power of apparent patriotism in politics. There was a groundswell of momentum to go to war based largely on this misinformation. The Administration put out a full-court press to get everyone to understand that we *had* to invade, or we could literally be facing mass death on our own shores (a reality which we were all too familiar with at the time).

It would be very hard to impossible for a member of Congress to go against popular sentiment (created by the administration), and be “weak on security” in a post 9/11 world.

Also, Dems (sadly for some) have proven to not be the same kind of revengeful/investigation launching pricks the R’s were in the late 90s (and likely early 2010s).

269 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:14:26pm

re: #259 imp_62

The underlying assumption that the US has ever cared about reformation and modernization of ME societies is on shaky ground. I don’t think that US policy was ever focused on much more than securing oil flow. But that engagement contains a huge policy “nut” of maintaining regional stability, regardless of the nature of individual regimes. That’s how we end up in bed with Wahhabites.

Problem is that oil revenues support all sorts of petty dictators, from Nigeria to Venezuela to the Middle East to Gazprom in Russia. The more we depend on oil, the more we are forced to depend on the corrupt regimes that supply it.

270 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:15:34pm

re: #258 researchok

Try this:

There Is a C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-O-N
Spelling out what we know about the pre-Iraq-war terror world.

[Link: mediamatters.org…]

271 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:15:38pm

re: #269 ralphieboy

We have now reached common ground. Miller time.

272 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:15:55pm

re: #254 researchok

All I am saying is that I do not believe the Bush administration willingly deceived anyone.

If they had we would never hear the end of it from the Dems in Congress, the Senate, or Bill Clinton.

Very few if any in positions of power or influence are pushing that meme.

If the evidence is so incontrovertible, ask yourself why that is.

I don’t think that they would have justified the war on the rationale of WMD if they really knew that they didn’t exist. Whether they would have the moral makeup to do that, I can’t say, but I don’t think they would have taken the political risk.

However, they presented their rationale as a “slam-dunk,” that there was no question that Saddam had WMD, that Iraq presented an eminent threat, that Saddam’s links to terrorism presented an eminent threat, and they deliberately undermined any variety of evidence that ran contrary to their claims.

Arguing about whether they lied is, I think, pretty irrelevant, because the incompetence of their policy-development process is well-documented and easily evidenced.

273 S'latch  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:16:15pm

Is it possible that Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi’s stories were fake but accurate? Kind of like Dan Rather’s National Guard Memos.

274 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:16:21pm

re: #264 Obdicut

I’m sorry, but you said that you don’t believe that there were operational ties between Saddam and Al Queda.

Yet you keep linking to articles alleging that.

Can you explain why?

The Pentagon report, which I feel is more credible than an article from NRO, the New York Post, or The Weekly Standard, has concluded there was no working relationship between Saddam and Al Queda.

OK, I’ll be clear.

I don’t believe there was operational connectivity.

I never said there were. In fact I said I didn’t believe there were operational contacts. .

My point in posing these links is to show there was contact between AQ and Saddam, a reality denied by many.

Sorry for the clipped responses- dealing with pain in ass phone call.

275 Coracle  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:16:59pm

re: #254 researchok

All I am saying is that I do not believe the Bush administration willingly deceived anyone.

If they had we would never hear the end of it from the Dems in Congress, the Senate, or Bill Clinton.

I think, then, that you may have been asleep for most of the duration of the war. Extra-congressional pposition to the war has said things to that effect since day one, and only become louder and more evidence-based as the war progressed. I’m guessing congress critters were as leery about calling out the lies as their opposition was in directly stating the lie of Hussein’s involvement in 9/11.

Very few if any in positions of power or influence are pushing that meme.
If the evidence is so incontrovertible, ask yourself why that is.

You provide the answer yourself - the often reprehensible game of politics.

276 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:17:11pm

re: #261 imp_62

Welcome. Hope you had fun —

Yes… plenty… but on the next to the last day, I came down with a nasty bronchial infection, was laid up in my hotel room for a day, plane flight home was annoying, being all congested, coughing and stuck in that “tube” for 11 hours, had to go on antibiotics when I got home… otherwise, trip was fun, saw some friends, saw some Lizards, did more in 10 days than most people could do in 3 weeks, busy, busy, busy.

One downside… I brought a new camera, was impressed with it at home, but in the “field” it wound up to be really shitty, so, I got about 800 just average pictures this time, not to many really amazing shots like I’m use to getting…. like the shot in my avatar from 2007.

277 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:18:01pm

re: #209 Fozzie Bear

“The smoking gun may come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

Nope, no deliberate push to scare the American people into supporting an invasion here. That’s just sound analysis. (Never mind that there was never any evidence that Hussein was anywhere near having a functioning nuclear weapon.)

I doubt Hussein had a functioning prostate.

278 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:18:11pm

re: #260 reine.de.tout

And somehow those UN resolutions have been forgotten, it seems to me.

Um, is this the same UN whose director-general seemed to think that the invasion was illegal?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

279 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:18:12pm

re: #268 EastSider

I think you’re wrong, and I think you underestimate the power of apparent patriotism in politics. There was a groundswell of momentum to go to war based largely on this misinformation. The Administration put out a full-court press to get everyone to understand that we *had* to invade, or we could literally be facing mass death on our own shores (a reality which we were all too familiar with at the time).

It would be very hard to impossible for a member of Congress to go against popular sentiment (created by the administration), and be “weak on security” in a post 9/11 world.

Also, Dems (sadly for some) have proven to not be the same kind of revengeful/investigation launching pricks the R’s were in the late 90s (and likely early 2010s).

I have to disagree.

Politics is a take no prisoners blood sport nowadays.

The Dems could only the WH for the next decade if they could prove what is being alleged here.

280 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:19:16pm

re: #272 Talking Point Detective

I remember how uncomfortable Colin Powell was when he presented the Administration’s case to the UN. If memory serves, there was talk that he would refuse to present the evidence of WMD. So certainly, there was a level of disagreement about the strength of the evidence even at the time, and within the Cabinet.

281 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:19:19pm

re: #279 researchok

I have to disagree.

Politics is a take no prisoners blood sport nowadays.

The Dems could only the WH for the next decade if they could prove what is being alleged here.

Many dems were complicit in this.

282 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:19:37pm

re: #274 researchok

OK, I’ll be clear.

I don’t believe there was operational connectivity.

I never said there were. In fact I said I didn’t believe there were operational contacts. .

But the links you’re linking are alleging exactly that.


My point in posing these links is to show there was contact between AQ and Saddam, a reality denied by many.

But your links don’t really show that. They allege a bunch of stuff, without much detail, in ways that don’t really show ‘contact’, and the contact they do claim isn’t of the cooperational kind. So what does it matter? What does it have to do with anything?

283 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:20:00pm

re: #221 researchok

You’re missing the point.

Bush has to be stupid and he has to be evil.

Not in the real world or political world, of course, but the meme must survive.

Well, one or the other.

Kidding, sort of. But either he had good information, and acted in full knowledge that the invasion was not a necessity, and would commit the United States to spending a decade with troops on the ground, or he was hoodwinked by bad information.

284 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:20:03pm

re: #279 researchok

I have to disagree.

Politics is a take no prisoners blood sport nowadays.

The Dems could only the WH for the next decade if they could prove what is being alleged here.

We’ll already own the White House for the next decade because the GOP base can’t will weed out anyone acceptable on the national level who tries to run for it….

285 Stanghazi  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:20:04pm

Did ya’ll see this yet? Lara Logan, CBS


daveweigel daveweigel
Prayers RT @mikeallen: On 2/11 in Egypt, Lara Logan “suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating”; now in hospital recovering

Mike O’Brien
MPOTheHill Mike O’Brien
by owillis
CBS: Logan was separated from her crew in jubilation in Tahrir Sq. Saved by group of women and ~20 Egyptian soldiers. In hospital recovering

286 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:20:12pm

re: #279 researchok


The Dems could only the WH for the next decade if they could prove what is being alleged here.

This is flat-out wrong. People don’t believe things that are “proven” - they believe things that fit with their emotional world view.

There are plenty of Americans who are not ready to accept that the case for the Iraq war was based on lies.

287 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:20:37pm

re: #270 recusancy

[Link: mediamatters.org…]

Media Matters? Hardly unbiased.

Why would they be more credible than the WS?

288 EastSider  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:20:41pm

For me, The Bush Administration paid two major mistakes.

1) Led us into the war based on evidence that was at best shaky and unwarranting of attack and at worst deliberately drummed up for the explicit purpose of justifying the invasion.

2) Were grossly and disgustingly unprepared for the fallout post-invasion. To the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

I just wish every time we had this discussion people accepted these two facts, and that maybe someone somewhere in the Bush administration would say “we messed up.” The blind insistence that they were 100% on the ball is saddening, and smacks of a lack of integrity and/or fundamentalist mentality that I do not regard as American.

289 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:20:53pm

re: #211 Killgore Trout

C’mon. seriously? It shit like this that makes me tune out. Bush had briefings with the NSA, CIA, military strategists etc. With the entire resources of the country at his disposal are you claiming he didn’t know there are different religious and ethnic sects in the country?
Can you provide the “solid evidence” you have for this claim?

I question that too. There is evidence that he ignored several experts on the middle east that suggested the US would be viewed by Iraqis as invaders, not liberators, but I suspect he had other experts telling him otherwise.

I think GWB got played by Cheney.

290 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:21:01pm

re: #276 Walter L. Newton

Yes… plenty… but on the next to the last day, I came down with a nasty bronchial infection, was laid up in my hotel room for a day, plane flight home was annoying, being all congested, coughing and stuck in that “tube” for 11 hours, had to go on antibiotics when I got home… otherwise, trip was fun, saw some friends, saw some Lizards, did more in 10 days than most people could do in 3 weeks, busy, busy, busy.

One downside… I brought a new camera, was impressed with it at home, but in the “field” it wound up to be really shitty, so, I got about 800 just average pictures this time, not to many really amazing shots like I’m use to getting… like the shot in my avatar from 2007.

What kind of camera?
I ended up going to Switzerland a week later than planned (work got in the way), but had a nice time.

291 EastSider  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:21:05pm

madre: #288 EastSider

For me, The Bush Administration paid two major mistakes.

1) Led us into the war based on evidence that was at best shaky and unwarranting of attack and at worst deliberately drummed up for the explicit purpose of justifying the invasion.

2) Were grossly and disgustingly unprepared for the fallout post-invasion. To the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

I just wish every time we had this discussion people accepted these two facts, and that maybe someone somewhere in the Bush administration would say “we messed up.” The blind insistence that they were 100% on the ball is saddening, and smacks of a lack of integrity and/or fundamentalist mentality that I do not regard as American.

paid = made*

292 Stanghazi  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:21:14pm

HuffPostHill HuffPost Hill
by ezraklein
In the wake of the Lara Logan news, the Committee to Protect Journalists is a good venue to learn more, and help. [Link: www.cpj.org…]

293 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:21:43pm

re: #287 researchok

Media Matters? Hardly unbiased.

Why would they be more credible than the WS?

Same with National Review.
Or Weekly Standard.
;)

294 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:22:03pm

re: #283 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, one or the other.

Kidding, sort of. But either he had good information, and acted in full knowledge that the invasion was not a necessity, and would commit the United States to spending a decade with troops on the ground, or he was hoodwinked by bad information.

Bad info in my opinion.

Remember, he was barely in office when 9/11 occurred.

From that day forward, pandemonium.

295 Coracle  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:22:12pm

re: #287 researchok

Media Matters? Hardly unbiased.

That’s your counter after citing NRO? Wow.

296 S'latch  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:22:51pm

Is it possible that every war in history began with lies?

297 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:22:52pm

re: #293 Varek Raith

Same with National Review.
Or Weekly Standard.
;)

I don’t know about that.

The National Review is pretty good.

Really good writers.

298 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:23:00pm

re: #294 researchok

Bad info in my opinion.

Remember, he was barely in office when 9/11 occurred.

From that day forward, pandemonium.

8 Moths is not “barely in office”.

299 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:23:13pm

re: #296 Lawrence Schmerel

Is it possible that every war in history began with lies?

What are you going on about?

300 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:23:24pm

re: #273 Lawrence Schmerel

Is it possible that Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi’s stories were fake but accurate? Kind of like Dan Rather’s National Guard Memos.

The word you’re looking for is ‘truthiness’. Dragging in poor ol’ Dan Rather isn’t necessary.

301 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:23:27pm

re: #285 Stanley Sea

Jesus, that’s horrible. I hope she’s ok now. Not that you can ever be “ok” right after being sexually assaulted and beaten.

302 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:23:28pm

re: #296 Lawrence Schmerel

Is it possible that every war in history began with lies?

Yes, that’s why I dislike it when America starts them rather than finishes them…

303 iossarian  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:23:28pm

re: #297 researchok

I don’t know about that.

The National Review is pretty good.

Really good writers.

Really? I just get it for the centerfolds.

304 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:23:33pm

re: #295 Coracle

That’s your counter after citing NRO? Wow.

Why is that so untenable?

305 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:23:47pm

re: #223 wrenchwench

220 mostly on-topic comments in an hour and a half indicate otherwise.

You want an off topic comment?

Your shoe is untied.

306 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:24:01pm

re: #303 iossarian

Really? I just get it for the centerfolds.

LOLOL

Line of the day!

307 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:24:29pm

re: #281 recusancy

Many dems were complicit in this.

Which is one reason among many why Obama is president today.

308 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:24:32pm

re: #298 jamesfirecat

8 Moths is not “barely in office”.

Yes, it is.

309 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:25:07pm

re: #285 Stanley Sea

Jesus, that’s terrible. So glad she got rescued.

310 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:25:14pm

re: #287 researchok

Media Matters? Hardly unbiased.

Why would they be more credible than the WS?

You have to be kidding me if you think WS is credible. Read it. Stephen Hayes tried but failed. The press would have eaten it up if it was true. It would have vindicated them as well.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]

311 Coracle  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:25:24pm

re: #304 researchok

Why is that so untenable?

If you think NRO and the WS are not deeply partisan, there’s nothing I can say to you that you will see as sense. I should have come to that realization earlier, I suppose.

312 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:25:43pm

re: #285 Stanley Sea

Did ya’ll see this yet? Lara Logan, CBS

daveweigel daveweigel
Prayers RT @mikeallen: On 2/11 in Egypt, Lara Logan “suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating”; now in hospital recovering

Mike O’Brien
MPOTheHill Mike O’Brien
by owillis
CBS: Logan was separated from her crew in jubilation in Tahrir Sq. Saved by group of women and ~20 Egyptian soldiers. In hospital recovering

Journalism is a serious damn business sometimes. Glad she’s recovering.

313 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:25:48pm

re: #308 researchok

Yes, it is.

And I say it isn’t… clearly we’re going to have to go to a panel of lizard judges for the answer….


Judges?

314 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:25:50pm

re: #286 iossarian

This is flat-out wrong. People don’t believe things that are “proven” - they believe things that fit with their emotional world view.

There are plenty of Americans who are not ready to accept that the case for the Iraq war was based on lies.

There is some truth to that.

315 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:26:11pm

Further proof - if any was needed - that Apple is the new Evil Empire:


Please respect FT.com’s ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - [Link: www.ft.com…]

Apple demands 30% slice of subscriptions

By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson and David Gelles in New York
Published: February 15 2011 16:47 | Last updated: February 15 2011 21:06
Apple is dictating tougher terms of commerce on its wildly successful mobile devices, demanding a 30 per cent cut of all subscriber content sold directly through its iPads and iPhones.

The new rules, which apply internationally, say that if publishers offer digital subscriptions they must make the same offer through the App Store. Publishers can still offer subscriptions through their own websites, but cannot link to the website from their app.

316 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:26:27pm

re: #297 researchok

I don’t know about that.

The National Review is pretty good.

Really good writers.

LOL!

317 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:26:31pm

re: #297 researchok

Not really. NRO are global-warming denying along with the rest of the right wing. They might have ‘good writers’, but they’re writing absolute crap.

318 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:27:13pm

re: #313 jamesfirecat

And I say it isn’t… clearly we’re going to have to go to a panel of lizard judges for the answer…

Judges?

MM was created primarily to discredit any GOP/Conservative line.

They are hardly a real news outlet.

319 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:27:21pm

re: #245 Fozzie Bear

Okay so assuming this ylellowcake was unrelated to the document, where did it come from?


AP story at MSNBC
500 metric tons of it…

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What’s now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

“Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq,” said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

320 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:27:56pm

re: #318 researchok

MM was created primarily to discredit any GOP/Conservative line.

They are hardly a real news outlet.

I was arguing with you on if “8 months” qualifies as “barley in office’ I think you’ve got your quotes crossed….

321 Coracle  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:27:58pm

re: #313 jamesfirecat

And I say it isn’t… clearly we’re going to have to go to a panel of lizard judges for the answer…

Judges?

8 Months is “barely in office” for a Republican.
8 Months is “plenty long enough” to judge utter failure for the entirety of a Democratic presidency.

322 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:27:58pm

re: #316 recusancy

LOL!

By thew way, I’d say the same thing about The National Review.

323 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:28:35pm

re: #311 Coracle

If you think NRO and the WS are not deeply partisan, there’s nothing I can say to you that you will see as sense. I should have come to that realization earlier, I suppose.

Sometimes you find you’ve been talking to a wall the whole time.

324 justaminute  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:29:06pm

With the vast untapped oil wealth Iraq has it will not be a stable region in the foreseeable future. The sooner America withdraws from the region and let them fight out their simmering tensions (which have only be there for about 100 years) the better it will be for us. The same goes for Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Iraq should be Iran’s headache. The Taliban hated Iran before we came along. Iraqis even though they are majority Shiite still dislike Iran. Iranians still feel the same about Iraqis. America is what brings them together.

325 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:29:09pm

re: #274 researchok

OK, I’ll be clear.

I don’t believe there was operational connectivity.

I never said there were. In fact I said I didn’t believe there were operational contacts. .

My point in posing these links is to show there was contact between AQ and Saddam, a reality denied by many.

Sorry for the clipped responses- dealing with pain in ass phone call.

The phone should be held closer to your head.

326 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:29:56pm

re: #305 b_sharp

You want an off topic comment?

Your shoe is untied.

My shoe is only untied on April 1st.

327 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:30:18pm

re: #294 researchok

Bad info in my opinion.

Remember, he was barely in office when 9/11 occurred.

From that day forward, pandemonium.

Then he was unfit to lead if he couldn’t keep his head on straight.

328 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:30:55pm

re: #319 Rightwingconspirator

The presence of yellowcake is evidence of intent, but hardly indicative of an imminent development of nuclear weapons.
[Link: www.democraticunderground.com…]

And besides, if WMD (or the imminent threat thereof) were really sufficient casus belli, why have we not yet taken out the Iranian regime?

329 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:31:21pm

re: #311 Coracle

If you think NRO and the WS are not deeply partisan, there’s nothing I can say to you that you will see as sense. I should have come to that realization earlier, I suppose.

Partisan- as in The National Review, for example?

Are they less credible because they are partisan?

330 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:31:25pm

re: #294 researchok

Bad info in my opinion.

Remember, he was barely in office when 9/11 occurred.

From that day forward, pandemonium.

He’d had eight months in office when it happened, and a year and a half between 9/11 and the invasion. Pandemonium, sure, but that’s what goes with the job.

I think there was some bad info out there, but I also believe that the administration fully intended to go to war in Iraq, and that they willfully chose and presented evidence based on this intention. They were unrealistic, and they believed people who told them what they wanted to hear. That’s the very kindest interpretation I can come up with.

331 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:32:29pm

re: #329 researchok

NRO are less credible because of articles like this:

[Link: www.nationalreview.com…]

A classic ‘it’s a cold winter therefore global warming doesn’t exist and there’s no scientific consensus LOL’ piece of crap writing.

Proudly hosted on the NRO.

332 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:32:48pm

re: #325 b_sharp

The phone should be held closer to your head.

Is that supposed to be a substantive response?

333 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:33:19pm

re: #331 Obdicut

NRO are less credible because of articles like this:

[Link: www.nationalreview.com…]

A classic ‘it’s a cold winter therefore global warming doesn’t exist and there’s no scientific consensus LOL’ piece of crap writing.

Proudly hosted on the NRO.

Well, give me a bit and I’ll dig up a TNR classic.

334 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:33:27pm

re: #330 SanFranciscoZionist

And I believe they really did think they could set up a stable democracy in short order, as well. I think that they thought it would work. I think their intentions in that regard were ‘pure’ as well.

335 makeitstop  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:33:35pm

Isn’t 8 months in office nearly 20% of a presidential term?

336 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:33:38pm

re: #277 b_sharp

I doubt Hussein had a functioning prostate.

What a tough crowd.

I make a really witty witticism about Hussein being militarily and internationally impotent at the time of the invasion and I don’t get a single laugh.

You’re all poopy heads and I’m going home. Well, I’m going to go get the wife from work. When we get back she can yell at you all.

337 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:33:39pm

re: #331 Obdicut

NRO are less credible because of articles like this:

[Link: www.nationalreview.com…]

A classic ‘it’s a cold winter therefore global warming doesn’t exist and there’s no scientific consensus LOL’ piece of crap writing.

Proudly hosted on the NRO.

What do they say when we have a hot summer???
/Tongue in cheek

338 Coracle  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:34:01pm

re: #329 researchok

Partisan- as in The National Review, for example?
Are they less credible because they are partisan?

Yes. Outfits like Media Matters exist to demonstrate that.

339 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:34:13pm

re: #333 researchok

Well, give me a bit and I’ll dig up a TNR classic.

Why?

340 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:34:15pm

re: #331 Obdicut

NRO are less credible because of articles like this:

[Link: www.nationalreview.com…]

A classic ‘it’s a cold winter therefore global warming doesn’t exist and there’s no scientific consensus LOL’ piece of crap writing.

Proudly hosted on the NRO.

They also employ Ramesh Panuru and Jonah Goldberg.

341 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:34:42pm

re: #339 Obdicut

Why?

MBF

342 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:35:23pm

re: #334 Obdicut

And I believe they really did think they could set up a stable democracy in short order, as well. I think that they thought it would work. I think their intentions in that regard were ‘pure’ as well.

Sure. I don’t think the Bush administration got up one morning and said, “Let’s screw up!” I can only assume they wanted the best, and thought what they were doing was the way to get there.

But good intentions get you only so far when you’re running the free world. I don’t think George Bush was a bad man, but I think he made some really bad choices.

343 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:35:49pm

re: #333 researchok

Well, give me a bit and I’ll dig up a TNR classic.

Who the hell is talking about TNR?

344 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:37:34pm

re: #285 Stanley Sea

Did ya’ll see this yet? Lara Logan, CBS

daveweigel daveweigel
Prayers RT @mikeallen: On 2/11 in Egypt, Lara Logan “suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating”; now in hospital recovering

Mike O’Brien
MPOTheHill Mike O’Brien
by owillis
CBS: Logan was separated from her crew in jubilation in Tahrir Sq. Saved by group of women and ~20 Egyptian soldiers. In hospital recovering

Oh, for fuck sakes. How incredibly upsetting.

345 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:38:25pm

re: #343 recusancy

Who the hell is talking about TNR?

Why not? Or are only right leaning mags fair game?

346 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:38:54pm

re: #328 imp_62

I’m just posting that fact on it’s own, not claiming anything imminent from yellowcake, which needs processing at length. But my question stands-Where did that come from?

347 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:39:19pm

re: #296 Lawrence Schmerel

Is it possible that every war in history began with lies?

Yes, but that doesn’t excuse the practice.

348 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:39:41pm

re: #342 SanFranciscoZionist

Sure. I don’t think the Bush administration got up one morning and said, “Let’s screw up!” I can only assume they wanted the best, and thought what they were doing was the way to get there.

But good intentions get you only so far when you’re running the free world. I don’t think George Bush was a bad man, but I think he made some really bad choices.

He and every other president.

Nobody bats 1000 in 24/7 real time.

No one.

349 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:40:11pm

It’s sad to look back and read articles like this:Operation Desert Snipe Back when I was a “traitor”.

350 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:40:59pm

re: #348 researchok

He and every other president.

Nobody bats 1000 in 24/7 real time.

No one.

Most other presidents have managed to avoid getting America into pre-emptive wars….

351 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:41:18pm

re: #348 researchok

He and every other president.

Nobody bats 1000 in 24/7 real time.

No one.

But you shouldn’t be in the game if you can’t get a hit.

352 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:42:31pm

re: #332 researchok

Is that supposed to be a substantive response?

No, it was a funny. Or supposed to be.

353 shutdown  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:44:11pm

re: #346 Rightwingconspirator

I’m just posting that fact on it’s own, not claiming anything imminent from yellowcake, which needs processing at length. But my question stands-Where did that come from?

Oh, Saddam would have dearly loved to have an operational nuclear weapons development program. If left to his own devices, I am sure he would have acquired centrifuges, etc. But given the distance between yellowcake and a warhead, it seems to me that fear-mongering about an Iraqi WMD program was a pretext, or at best a rationalization.

354 recusancy  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:44:19pm

re: #345 researchok

Why not? Or are only right leaning mags fair game?

Nobody’s using TNR as a basis for anything. Do you understand that?

355 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:45:38pm

re: #348 researchok

He and every other president.

Nobody bats 1000 in 24/7 real time.

No one.

That’s true. But this was a very big deal, it led to years of war, and people are still making excuses for it.

I’m not eaten up with anger at Bush, but I do resent the way public opinion was manipulated, and especially the way the national sense of fear after 9/11 was exploited.

356 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:55:55pm

re: #127 Fozzie Bear

Okay, I’m back and I’ll try to catch up.

So your hunch about what Saddam would be doing now trumps evidence? This is your argument?

No, that’s not my argument. My argument is that Saddam was a highly sadistic psychopath—which means that he wasn’t going to stop. That’s part of the definition of psychopathology, they aren’t going to stop.

Evidence of what, that he was going to stop torturing, killing, starving and maiming his people? I didn’t see that evidence.

357 MinisterO  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 1:57:04pm

re: #335 makeitstop

Isn’t 8 months in office nearly 20% of a presidential term?

16.02%

358 reine.de.tout  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:00:17pm

re: #278 iossarian

Um, is this the same UN whose director-general seemed to think that the invasion was illegal?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

I didn’t say anything about the Director-General. I said something about the resolutions, which he did not pass all by himself, did he?

359 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:01:01pm

re: #355 SanFranciscoZionist

That’s true. But this was a very big deal, it led to years of war, and people are still making excuses for it.

I’m not eaten up with anger at Bush, but I do resent the way public opinion was manipulated, and especially the way the national sense of fear after 9/11 was exploited.

I can’t say I disagree entirely but I’m less critical.

9/11 and it’s aftermath were uncharted waters.

Hell, I remember the media breathlessly speculating when the next attack would be.

360 researchok  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:03:51pm

re: #338 Coracle

Yes. Outfits like Media Matters exist to demonstrate that.

So the The National Review is less credible.

How about the New Republic?

361 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:05:38pm

re: #355 SanFranciscoZionist

That’s true. But this was a very big deal, it led to years of war, and people are still making excuses for it.

I’m not eaten up with anger at Bush, but I do resent the way public opinion was manipulated, and especially the way the national sense of fear after 9/11 was exploited.

yep

362 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:06:15pm

re: #348 researchok

He and every other president.

Nobody bats 1000 in 24/7 real time.

No one.

it’d be nice if he at least batted .100

SCHIAVO!!!!!

363 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:08:08pm

re: #161 SanFranciscoZionist

Saddam was a steel-plated murdering asshole. I do not think anyone (here) would deny that.

That’s the reason to take him out.

I decline the ‘but Saddam was an asshole’ excuse. It’s true, but it’s not part of U.S. motivation for taking him out.

I’m going to end up repeating myself, because I don’t juggle plates well, but…

Lyndon Johnson lied about Tonkin Bay, Nixon lied throughout his political career, Ford lied about not making any deal with Nixon about a pardon, Carter was in such a fog that nothing was believable, Reagan lied about giving arms to Iran to free the hostages, Reagan’s point man to Congress (David Stockman) cooked his figures to get legislation passed, (I stopped paying attention when Bush I was elected), Clinton lied throughout his campaign, and in his determination to stop terrorism (an effort so weak that it’s likely the issue didn’t interest him), and now….what, Bush II follows in the tradition. Are you expecting these folks to tell you the unvarnished truth? Please say ‘no’.

364 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:10:29pm

re: #363 Bob Levin

That’s the reason to take him out.

Not really. Not unless you can actually say things will be better afterwards.

365 MinisterO  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:10:32pm

re: #363 Bob Levin

Clinton lied throughout his campaign, and in his determination to stop terrorism (an effort so weak that it’s likely the issue didn’t interest him)

This is bullshit. Clinton tried. The Republican Congress shut him down.

366 garhighway  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:12:32pm

Reasons why the Iraq War did not make sense at the time…

1> Assuming Saddam had or would make WMDs at some point (which was unclear at the time), it WAS clear that he lacked the means to use those weapons against us, and that he no chance to develop such a capacity. He was therefore not a threat to our nation.

2> We had recently come off 40 years of successfully containing a hostile nation with as many or more WMDs as we have AND the ability to hit us with those weapons: the Soviet Union. We managed that process just fine without invading them.

3> It was clear at the time that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. (Although Cheney and others did their dead level best to confuse that issue, for whatever reason. On that point, The Longest War is a good reference.)

4> While all agree that Saddam was evil, he was no more spectacularly evil than a whole bunch of other dictators that were not being singled out for similar treatment: Kim Jung Il, Robert Mugabe, etc… To date, no one has advanced a sensible test for which dictators are so evil that we have to invade their countries and impose regime change and which aren’t.

The invasion never made sense. However, the political climate at the time made it difficult to resist: a bunch of Dems went along with it because they felt it was political suicide to do otherwise. That they were intimidated into voting “aye” is no excuse for the deed. If anything, the fact that there could not be a rational political discussion should have made the White House more cautious, not less.

367 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:13:34pm

re: #179 goddamnedfrank

And Mubarak’s sons had their own torture chambers? Nope.

368 MinisterO  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:14:55pm

re: #321 Coracle

8 Months is “barely in office” for a Republican.
8 Months is “plenty long enough” to judge utter failure for the entirety of a Democratic presidency.

Yup.

369 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:17:16pm

re: #367 Bob Levin

There is still torture in Iraq.

370 garhighway  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:17:48pm

re: #367 Bob Levin

And Mubarak’s sons had their own torture chambers? Nope.

Please share with us your list of regimes too evil to exist, and the lengths to which the United States should go to rid the world of those regimes.

371 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:23:55pm

re: #208 Obdicut

I’m totally lost with whatever it is you’re saying. What I’m saying is that Saddam’s badness has nothing at all to do with why we invaded, and, given that the current situation in Iraq is pretty fucking terrible, it’s not even a post-facto reason to have invaded.

What I’m saying is that Presidential Administrations lie to the American people. It’s what they do. President Obama will not be different, it’s just part of how the job goes. I’m jaded in this respect.

Therefore, when deciding where you stand on any given issue, it is a very good idea to ignore what comes from an administration and decide without their input. It is not news to me that there is lying going on in higher echelons of government. I expect it.

So, everything about this war, for me, hinged on Saddam’s behavior toward his people and neighboring nations. That was all I needed.

372 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:28:35pm

re: #371 Bob Levin

So, everything about this war, for me, hinged on Saddam’s behavior toward his people and neighboring nations. That was all I needed.

Why are you refusing to engage with the current reality in Iraq?

373 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:30:05pm

re: #364 Obdicut

Can’t predict the future. Although, one less person like Saddam has to be an improvement.

Besides, you’re not telling me that policy decisions, military decisions shouldn’t be made if we can’t predict the future.

374 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:31:26pm

re: #373 Bob Levin

Can’t predict the future. Although, one less person like Saddam has to be an improvement.

Why does it ‘have to be’?

Besides, you’re not telling me that policy decisions, military decisions shouldn’t be made if we can’t predict the future.

I’m sorry, but if all you’re going to do is set up ridiculous strawmen, I have no desire at all to continue this conversation. I generally think better of you than that.

375 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:35:06pm

re: #365 MinisterO

If you want saints, don’t look in the government. Clinton policy was heavily determined by focus groups. It’s not a stretch to believe the only cause that President Clinton truly believed in, was Bill Clinton.

I’m not taking any sides in this Republican/Democrat thing. I’m just saying that Presidential administrations lie to the public on a consistent basis.

376 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:36:18pm

re: #369 Obdicut

I’m sorry. I really am. I wish it wasn’t so.

377 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:39:41pm

re: #370 garhighway

Again, I know the limitations of my argument. I wish there weren’t such evil regimes. Sometimes, though, the right thing happens for the wrong reason. There was nothing wrong with getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

If you want to say the follow up strategy was terrible and counterproductive, I already said that around comment 95.

378 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:41:04pm

re: #372 Obdicut

I’m agreeing with you. It’s saddening that things aren’t better.

379 garhighway  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:43:05pm

re: #371 Bob Levin

What I’m saying is that Presidential Administrations lie to the American people. It’s what they do. President Obama will not be different, it’s just part of how the job goes. I’m jaded in this respect.

Therefore, when deciding where you stand on any given issue, it is a very good idea to ignore what comes from an administration and decide without their input. It is not news to me that there is lying going on in higher echelons of government. I expect it.

So, everything about this war, for me, hinged on Saddam’s behavior toward his people and neighboring nations. That was all I needed.

So how many American dead was it worth to rid the world of Saddam? And how many would it be worth to rid the world of:

Robert Mugabe
Kim Jong Il
Than Shwe
Omar Al-Bashir
GURBANGULY BERDIMUHAMEDOV
ISAIAS AFWERKI
ISLAM KARIMOV
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
MELES ZENAWI
MUAMMAR AL-QADDAFI
BASHAR AL-ASSAD
HUGO CHÁVEZ

380 MinisterO  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:51:55pm

re: #375 Bob Levin

If you want saints, don’t look in the government. Clinton policy was heavily determined by focus groups. It’s not a stretch to believe the only cause that President Clinton truly believed in, was Bill Clinton.

I’m not taking any sides in this Republican/Democrat thing. I’m just saying that Presidential administrations lie to the public on a consistent basis.

You’ll believe what you like. Your example is bullshit. I don’t care about the They All Lie meme.

381 garhighway  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 2:57:02pm

re: #377 Bob Levin

Again, I know the limitations of my argument. I wish there weren’t such evil regimes. Sometimes, though, the right thing happens for the wrong reason. There was nothing wrong with getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

If you want to say the follow up strategy was terrible and counterproductive, I already said that around comment 95.

I haven’t even gotten to the follow up strategy. It was so obviously fucked-up that no one defends it, and I therefore have no need to address it.

But “there was nothing wrong with getting rid of Saddam” is an unbelievably misguided thing to say.

There were 4000+ things wrong with it. (4000+ of our nation’s sons and daughters.) We squandered American blood and treasure to intervene in another country’s internal affairs. We ought not do that absent a compelling national interest. Ridding the world of Saddam was not a compelling national interest.

382 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 3:18:36pm

re: #374 Obdicut

Okay, I didn’t mean for that to sound like a strawman. I don’t think I did that, but re-reading it, I can see how you might think that. So, I’ll take the blame for that, and give my apologies.

I said, Saddam’s past actions were enough reason for me to think that taking him out was a good idea.

You said:

Not really. Not unless you can actually say things will be better afterwards.

Okay, well, I can’t do that. I can hope that things will be better, in the far future if not the near future. That’s the best I can do. You say that things are bad there right now. I’ll agree with that. But I still wouldn’t leave him in power.

We both agree that he and his family were horrible, horrid people. So, would you leave him in power and work with him, or do you take him out? I am more comfortable that he was taken out. I’m not claiming any objective correctness. Nor am I saying that this should be a standard practice of US policy. I am simply saying that I am glad he is gone.

I’m taking a moral stance. I’m glad he is gone, and I’m not particular how it happened. I say this knowing about some of what he did to his victims.

There are limitations (great limitations) when taking a moral stance, because morals and a dime will get you a penny’s worth of bubble gum. I can only be saddened at present day Iraq, Liberia, Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. What is there to do about Tibet? I don’t know.

What about Belarus, Chad, China, Equitorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Zimbabwe as well as the Western Sahara territory of North Africa? I don’t know.

So there’s the weakness of taking a moral stance. It lacks the kind of practicality needed to help people. I see the world staggering towards improvement, staggering like a drunk trying to get home, falling every which way and landing on every sharp object around.

I prefer taking more practical approaches. I just can’t do it in this instance.

383 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 3:37:24pm

re: #380 MinisterO

Then what is this discussion about? It started by saying that our intelligence source lied about the military capabilities of Iraq. People have extended this to outrage that the Bush administration lied—as if this is historically significant. I’m saying that such behavior is commonplace and probably thousands of years old.

So I’m not sure what you are saying. In your previous post you listed oppressive dictators who are hurting their people. Implied, these are bad people too. No argument, they are. Would you like me to quantify something? This many casualties are acceptable…I’m not going to do that. I said, I don’t know what to do about this situation.

However, the facts on the ground are that Saddam is dead. I’m sorry he didn’t simply have a heart attack like Stalin did. I wish someone ran over little boy Adolph with a trolley. It didn’t happen like that. Do you want me to grieve for American lives lost? I will, I do. I think about lives lost in WWII, in WWI, about the victims of these terrible men. Do you ever think about what happened on Normandy Beach, or Saipan? Is there some kind of moral math going on here that I don’t know about?

If your point is that you are outraged, then be outraged, be very outraged and make sure that your outrage extends everywhere it needs to go—because it should not be confined to the soldiers lost in Iraq. There is so much more outrage to go around, reaching everywhere in the world, throughout all of history.

384 garhighway  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 3:41:13pm

re: #383 Bob Levin

Then what is this discussion about? It started by saying that our intelligence source lied about the military capabilities of Iraq. People have extended this to outrage that the Bush administration lied—as if this is historically significant. I’m saying that such behavior is commonplace and probably thousands of years old.

So I’m not sure what you are saying. In your previous post you listed oppressive dictators who are hurting their people. Implied, these are bad people too. No argument, they are. Would you like me to quantify something? This many casualties are acceptable…I’m not going to do that. I said, I don’t know what to do about this situation.

However, the facts on the ground are that Saddam is dead. I’m sorry he didn’t simply have a heart attack like Stalin did. I wish someone ran over little boy Adolph with a trolley. It didn’t happen like that. Do you want me to grieve for American lives lost? I will, I do. I think about lives lost in WWII, in WWI, about the victims of these terrible men. Do you ever think about what happened on Normandy Beach, or Saipan? Is there some kind of moral math going on here that I don’t know about?

If your point is that you are outraged, then be outraged, be very outraged and make sure that your outrage extends everywhere it needs to go—because it should not be confined to the soldiers lost in Iraq. There is so much more outrage to go around, reaching everywhere in the world, throughout all of history.

My point is that the war was a mistake, and that it was clearly a mistake AT THE TIME, whether you felt that “curveball” was telling the truth then or not. And that those who say “it was worth it” haven’t looked very hard at the cost side of the ledger.

385 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 3:47:00pm

re: #384 garhighway

I understand that.

And that those who say “it was worth it” haven’t looked very hard at the cost side of the ledger.

I’m saying there is a lot more cost than you mention—there is so so much more cost. And it’s not going to end tomorrow. There was cost when Saddam was alive, there was cost after he was gone. There is still cost in every corner of the world. I’m not using that concept as a tool to numb myself. Others do, I’ll acknowledge that. I’m not.

386 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 3:47:33pm

Again, I’ve got to run. I’ll check back later. Thanks, everyone.

387 RadicalRon  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 5:50:13pm

This is very old news.

Curveball was a defector who was run by Germany’s BND. This from Spiegel International on March 22, 2008

Five years ago, the US government presented what it said was proof that Iraq harbored biological weapons. The information came from a source developed by German intelligence — and it turned out to be disastrously wrong. But to this day, Germany denies any responsibility.

Published the same day were interviews with David Kay and Colin Powell’s chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson.

388 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 10:17:37pm

re: #209 Fozzie Bear

“The smoking gun may come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

Nope, no deliberate push to scare the American people into supporting an invasion here. That’s just sound analysis. (Never mind that there was never any evidence that Hussein was anywhere near having a functioning nuclear weapon.)

That was a great line for scaring children, and yet American adults fell for it. the fact that we as a country didn’t see right through that bit of theater is pretty embarrassing.

389 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 15, 2011 10:19:40pm

re: #188 Obdicut

So what? Nobody is saying we are. This seems to be a completely irrelevant statement. Nobody, at all, is saying that Saddam was the Dali Lama, or that Saddam wasn’t an evil tosser.

Stale talking points sound really weird years after the fact, son’t they?

390 boxhead  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 3:21:44am

re: #97 Fozzie Bear

I feel like there’s a lot of people walking around with broken bullshit detectors. Does anybody honestly believe that there wasn’t a concerted attempt by the Bush administration to conflate AQ and Iraq in the minds of the American people, in order to lend legitimacy to the invasion of Iraq?

heck.. I know otherwise very good people that still believe Glen Beck…. I just don’t even have a clue how this happened… Something in the water?

391 DrBoobooday  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 4:41:56am

re: #75 iossarian

Because they were cowardly enablers.

392 DrBoobooday  Wed, Feb 16, 2011 4:50:13am

re: #373 Bob Levin

Can’t predict the future. Although, one less person like Saddam has to be an improvement.

Besides, you’re not telling me that policy decisions, military decisions shouldn’t be made if we can’t predict the future.

We could predict that tens of thousands of Iraqis would die. We could predict that “shock and awe” would kill thousands. We could predict that thousands of our own soldiers would die. We could predict chaos and instability.

Little old ladies and grizzled Vietnam vets who stood with me in the street predicted all this, without a pack of ‘experts’ or informants named “curveball.”

Does the average Iraqi think their dead child/grandmother/father/mother/brother/sister was a fair price to pay for getting rid of Saddam? Did we win their hearts and minds? Were they begging us to “democratize” and “liberate” them?

Would they say their lives are better now than before the invasion? Are our lives better? One old bastard (who we used to support) is dead, along with scores of innocents. Was it really worth it?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh