Analysis: Iraq is no Vietnam

[GaryC 7]

Unlike you I base my opinions on the facts and not the BS that is fed me by the media.

Which is why you're a proud follower of Rush Limbaugh as you declared earlier. Listen to you, man.

Hehehe, just as I thought. You have no answer. What's the matter? Have I burst your liberal bubble? Do you now see how misled you have been? I doubt it but I would still like to see you try and refute the things I have said. Come on, you have been loud-mouthed when you thought you had something to say.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Do you now see how misled you have been?

Yes, your continued regurgitation of Bushs's and Rush's soundbites have shown me the light. Finally. Thank You! You so funny!

[GaryC 7]

Owned

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Owned

But dream on, buddy.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Owned

But dream on, buddy.

survey says...........

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Owned

But dream on, buddy.

survey says...........

I don't think so. He took the attempt to discuss this on merit and flushed it down the toilet by bringing fcuking bloggers into this. I don't debate bloggers' #######. Y'all just sit back and enjoy your war while it lasts. Bush will pull the troops ou before long. Not because the Dem's cut funding but because his daddy's team will tell him so. Watch it! They're feverishly working on a spin to make them look like they come out out top even though they've crashed the Middle East into it's biggest crisis in decades.

[GaryC 7]

Owned

But dream on, buddy.

survey says...........

I don't think so. He took the attempt to discuss this on merit and flushed it down the toilet by bringing fcuking bloggers into this. I don't debate bloggers' #######. Y'all just sit back and enjoy your war while it lasts. Bush will pull the troops ou before long. Not because the Dem's cut funding but because his daddy's team will tell him so. Watch it! They're feverishly working on a spin to make them look like they come out out top even though they've crashed the Middle East into it's biggest crisis in decades.

I still haven't seen you refute one thing I said. My guess is you can't. It does not matter if it's from a blog or not, everything said there was true. I noticed you also stopped talking about the Inteligence report also. That wasn't from a blog. Anything to say about that? Hmmmm?????

[mybackpages 0]

Here's a novel idea..how about posting legitimate news stories rather than editorials. A persuasive writer can prove anything to the masses.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I still haven't seen you refute one thing I said. My guess is you can't. It does not matter if it's from a blog or not, ...

It matters whether it's a blog or not because I won't entertain it. Not because I can't but because I think it's useless. There's a difference between what a subject matter expert writes and what a blogger comes up with. You might not be able to differentiate one from the other or even prefer the latter but in terms of debating facts, trends, probabilities and such, I prefer to go with the former.

On the NIE, the assumption that taking out the AQ leader in Iraq will turn the situation for the better, well, what can I say? He's been taken out and the assumption that was made is not materializing at all. Which calls into question that particular assumption and anything derived therefrom...

[GaryC 7]

Here's a novel idea..how about posting legitimate news stories rather than editorials. A persuasive writer can prove anything to the masses.

I am not sure you read what I was posting. It was first the top 15 things that the libs say about bush and the war and then using facts to refute them. The only one ET cared to try to challenge me on was about the Intelligence report. All I did was post the report. It clearly showed that he was listening to the media spin rather than the report itself. All the other points he has nothing to say about. If he can come up with a legit source that says something different I am here to listen. I can only assume that he can't. I am still here waiting.

I still haven't seen you refute one thing I said. My guess is you can't. It does not matter if it's from a blog or not, ...

It matters whether it's a blog or not because I won't entertain it. Not because I can't but because I think it's useless. There's a difference between what a subject matter expert writes and what a blogger comes up with. You might not be able to differentiate one from the other or even prefer the latter but in terms of debating facts, trends, probabilities and such, I prefer to go with the former.

On the NIE, the assumption that taking out the AQ leader in Iraq will turn the situation for the better, well, what can I say? He's been taken out and the assumption that was made is not materializing at all. Which calls into question that particular assumption and anything derived therefrom...

So why were you trumpeting the "fact" that 16 inteligence agencies say we are worse off because of the war? If it doesn't work for me then why should it work for you? Do you no longer have any faith in that document? If so please don't use it in any more arguments about the war.

If you want me to back up the other 14 points that I made with other sources then just say so. It would be rather easy. Pick one and lets debate it.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[mybackpages 0]

Here's a novel idea..how about posting legitimate news stories rather than editorials. A persuasive writer can prove anything to the masses.

I am not sure you read what I was posting. It was first the top 15 things that the libs say about bush and the war and then using facts to refute them. The only one ET cared to try to challenge me on was about the Intelligence report. All I did was post the report. It clearly showed that he was listening to the media spin rather than the report itself. All the other points he has nothing to say about. If he can come up with a legit source that says something different I am here to listen. I can only assume that he can't. I am still here waiting.

Give me a set of facts and I can write you two stories. I am reminded of the final scene of Julius Ceasar in which Brutus defends (poorly) the facts of his action to murder Ceasar to save Rome and how Marc Anthony spoke so eloquently using the same facts to condemn Brutus and won the favor of the general public. The public was swayed by not by the facts but by their presentation.

Its something both sides of this set of facts needs to remember.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you want me to back up the other 14 points that I made with other sources then just say so. It would be rather easy. Pick one and lets debate it.

Let's clarify here - YOU didn't make the points. You reposted an article, which I assume you agree with

In fact, I'd be willing to suggest that you didn't come up with any of those points by yourself - you were just googling for an article that agrees with your interpretation of the events, much like the rest of us.

On that question on whether Bush did not EXPLICITLY claim that Saddam was linked to 9/11. He may never have explicitly said Saddam + Al Qaeda = 9/11, but he (and Cheney) certainly have made no distinction between Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and 9/11. In fact, Iraq was justified on the basis of a direct threat to the US mainland from Saddam's WMD. BTW - how many times have you heard "fight them over there, so we don't have to face them in our streets?".

Here's a couple of sources to back that up - but I thoroughly expect you will rubbish them, which; at this point really destroys the point of any rational debate. Doubtless you and your cronies will be rubbing your hands at that.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11

Horse's mouth

Presidential Letter

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(B) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Bush Letter to Senate

Please refute this last one. I'm sure it doesn't say what I think it does...

If not, that's ok - we can always look at a sample of Bush's pre-war speeches and do a "linguistic analysis". If you're game of course.

Edited November 19, 2006 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.

President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.

For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.

They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.

We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.

We don't know.

Vice-President ####### Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.

We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.

We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.

Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.

[saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you want me to back up the other 14 points that I made with other sources then just say so. It would be rather easy. Pick one and lets debate it.

Let's clarify here - YOU didn't make the points. You reposted an article, which I assume you agree with

In fact, I'd be willing to suggest that you didn't come up with any of those points by yourself - you were just googling for an article that agrees with your interpretation of the events, much like the rest of us.

On that question on whether Bush did not EXPLICITLY claim that Saddam was linked to 9/11. He may never have explicitly said Saddam + Al Qaeda = 9/11, but he (and Cheney) certainly have made no distinction between Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and 9/11. In fact, Iraq was justified on the basis of a direct threat to the US mainland from Saddam's WMD. BTW - how many times have you heard "fight them over there, so we don't have to face them in our streets?".

Here's a couple of sources to back that up - but I thoroughly expect you will rubbish them, which; at this point really destroys the point of any rational debate. Doubtless you and your cronies will be rubbing your hands at that.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11

Horse's mouth

Presidential Letter

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(B) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Bush Letter to Senate

Please refute this last one. I'm sure it doesn't say what I think it does...

If not, that's ok - we can always look at a sample of Bush's pre-war speeches and do a "linguistic analysis". If you're game of course.

You're waisting your time with this. We've had the same thing go down in another threat on whether or not Bush lied. I presented documentation (not partisan hack) backing up that he did on a very specific point of the explosives and poison gas training that Saddam allgedly provided to Al-Qaeda. That particular claim that Bush made on several occasions in the run-up to his war of choice is as bogus as they come. He could make that claim only if he truly believed and honored the word of the enemy over that of our military intelligence.

Needless to say, none of the Rushies or Bushies had anything to say about it. They know he's a lying crook, they just don't want to admit it. They probably feel it would embolden the enemy...

Edited November 19, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As far as I know this was NEVER once addressed by anyone here, although I believe Gary did dismiss it offhand as 'fake' once. And Kaydee will probably suggest that foreign media is 'inadmissible'. So a waste of time? You're probably right.

"Reasoned debate" died a long time ago with these threads.

DAVID MANNING

From: Matthew Rycroft

Date: 23 July 2002

S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(B) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

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

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(B) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

© CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

I guess this went pretty much answered too... The story wasn't picked up by the US networks (itself the result of ####### editorial standards)

The Honorable George W. Bush

President of the United States of America

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1. Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2. Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3. Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4. At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5. Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/l...memoltr5505.pdf

Edited November 19, 2006 by erekose