Saddam and Al Quida had no connection. While Islam is obviously practiced in Iraq, Saddam was a largely secular leader. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded.Giskard said:
Why isn't bush recieving an impeachment?
- Thread starter reap
- Start date
spidergoat said:
And, the sky is yellow.
Again, I ask for your proof. This is not common knowledge, so you need to cite some credible sources if I am to take your word. This is a serious matter, so we cannot presume and make accusations without verifiable evidence.
The proof is that NONE of these things were found in Iraq, after Bush and Co. said they were sure they were. That was a lie.
The proof that Iraq did not violate UN resolution 1441 is that Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, never said he wasn't cooperating, and Hans Blix was in charge of making that determination.
The proof that Iraq did not violate UN resolution 1441 is that Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, never said he wasn't cooperating, and Hans Blix was in charge of making that determination.
Saddam and Al Quida did not cooperate, their aims were different. Al Quida hated Saddam since he was secular, and prevented the institution of Islamic laws. No one, not even Bush suggested that there were Al Quida cells, active or inactive, in Iraq. If there were, then even Saddam would want them gone. Bush wanted Saddam, that's why Saddam got a chance to give himself up.
The only connection I know of between Saddam and terror was his donations to Palestinian suicide bomber's widows, and he wasn't alone in that, many people from many muslim countries do the same thing.
Didn't Saddam kill him?
We know Saddam met with Al Quida, but there's no evidence that they cooperated.
We know Saddam met with Al Quida, but there's no evidence that they cooperated.
The lack of proof is not proof that they weren't there. They could be moved elsewhere you know. Bush took so long trying to go through the UN that there was plenty of time to move WoMD. Besides, British intelligence confirmed that there were. Wasn't the Intel false somehow? I thought I remember hearing that. Anyway, the fact is Bush was told one thing and made a decision on it.spidergoat said:
That is a good stinkin point.spidergoat said:
It is not proof, but it smells like something fishy going on. If Bush did lie, he needs to answer for it. He should have just said his intentions. I don't think congress would have approved. What about the American people? Probably not, so (if he lied) did the means justify the end? Maybe, but he would still need to answer for lying. We can't let it go, he would need to be impeached just like Clinton was. I hope that I don't find any proof to back up this smelly situation.
We can't have presidents manipulating the American people to execute his desires...
BHS said:
Very nice thouhgts but you forget that might makes right in most of the world. Sad but true. How can simple people just trying to get by and live ever stand up against a tyrannt with weaponry? Tyranny 1: Take the peoples guns, then their money, then their food and you will control them forever. Too many bad people in the world looking out for themselves, many under the disguise of head of state or UN ambassador. Now add in all the religious fanatics that believe it is their gods message to kill all non believers and holy cow we'e got a real mess on our hands. Can't see a UN of any kind ever working.
As it is, the Western World (read the US) deals with tyranny only as it becomes a threat to our peace. I believe that presenting a united democratic front and a consistent set of policies for dealing with non-democratic nations would have a more dramatic and beneficial impact on tyranny than the scattershot effect we use today.
Giskard said:
Interesting. You just described exactly how the US operates within the golbal political realm. Replace the word 'god' with commerce. Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps a money-driven selfish people represented by a rich imbecile could be seen in many others' eyes as a fanatical nation? The banner of 'bringing democracy' to people is just as selfish an excuse as the need for 'Breathing room'. Look it up.
glaucon said:
Now you are really streeeeeeeetching things here. "Gods" don't give you many options. Live by the law or be condemned. Commerce allows you to be rich, poor or somewhere in the middle. You can lead, follow or get out of the way. Nobody really cares as long as you don't screw up the works. Commerce is good for everybody, even those who hate it. Religion is good for no one. World history proves it.
Fair enough. And I couldn't agree more with you concerning Religion in general. However, there is something disturbingly messianic to be found in the whole 'bring freedom to the world' concept that the US administration has taken upon itself. This type of Idealism has little to do with domestic politics, and much to do with 'converting the heathen'. Sure sounds like a religion to me.
No, of course, I am not. The thing to remember is the reason the congress was given that war was the only reasonable way to deal with an immanent threat to the United States. The president cannot declare war, and the congress was mislead about the facts. I was and am all for attacking Al Quida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, or wherever they run to, but we need to wise up and realize that the Iraq debacle was a premeditated part of the Plan for a New American Century.Giskard said:
Glaucon:
You use the word selfish as if it were a bad thing.
Every nation's foreign policy is driven entirely by self interest. True, there is the appearance of deceit when "bringing freedom to the world" is presented as a gift to other nations instead of a security measure for the West. But presenting a complex argument in the most favourable light is hardly a crime. I do agree that there is an uncomfortably religious tone to the rhetoric being employed, though I don't know if indicates an underlying religiosity or if it is merely the tone that a particularly religious president applies to all of his policies. If Jesse Jackson were president I'm sure his policy statements would have a religious ring to them too.
You use the word selfish as if it were a bad thing.
Every nation's foreign policy is driven entirely by self interest. True, there is the appearance of deceit when "bringing freedom to the world" is presented as a gift to other nations instead of a security measure for the West. But presenting a complex argument in the most favourable light is hardly a crime. I do agree that there is an uncomfortably religious tone to the rhetoric being employed, though I don't know if indicates an underlying religiosity or if it is merely the tone that a particularly religious president applies to all of his policies. If Jesse Jackson were president I'm sure his policy statements would have a religious ring to them too.
BHS said:
I agree. I was just trying to point out that while we're comparing say, two organized states' actions where one operates under the guise of 'Religion' and another under that of 'Saviour', ultimately if the methodologies do not differ that much, then regardless of what we choose to call them, the concern should be for the behaviour and its effects.
jayleew said:
Do you have a few hours? Read all the links fully and try to fit all the pieces into a probable truth of your own construction.
Proving that people are lying rather than incompetent is difficult.
http://americaforsale.org/mt/archives/000157.php
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-e.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/unco...ed: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (The%
20Movie)
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/030331fa_fact1
http://alternet.org/story/17952
http://complete911timeline.org/time...ine_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&startpos=450
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html The Downing Street Memo
By Kevin Drum
Washingto Monthly
July 31 2004
YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK....Since I've written a couple of posts about Joe Wilson recently, I decided a few days ago to read the entire Niger section of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee report to make sure I knew everything they had said about him. As it turns out, there are only a couple of paragraphs about discrepancies in Wilson's testimony, and since those paragraphs have already been reproduced a thousand times in the mainstream media I didn't learn anything new.
However, it turns out that there is a pretty good story buried in there about how CIA analysis works — or doesn't. It takes a while to get to the punch line, but it's worth it. The timeline begins just four weeks after 9/11:
October 15, 2001: The CIA receives a report from a "foreign government service" — the Italians — saying that Niger had signed a deal to ship several tons of uranium to Iraq.
February 5, 2002: The CIA receives a second report from the Italians. This report claims to contain the "verbatim text" of the agreement, which calls for Niger to ship 500 tons of yellowcake per year to Iraq.
Time passes. Dick Cheney learns about the report and asks for more information. The CIA sends Joe Wilson to Niger to check things out. He reports back that a deal between Niger and Iraq is very unlikely. The Italians continue to say that their source is reliable. The State Department is skeptical.
The CIA publishes a National Intelligence Estimate saying that there are "reports" of Iraq trying to procure uranium. The State Department objects, but due to a weird drafting snafu their dissent ends up in the wrong section of the NIE.
The deputy director of the CIA, testifying before Congress, is asked about British reports of Iraqi uranium procurement from Africa and says "we don't think they are very credible." The president plans to give a speech in Cincinnati mentioning the African uranium, but the CIA suggests the passage be removed. George Tenet personally calls the White House to tell them the "reporting is weak." Despite this, references to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium continue to show up in CIA documents.
We now move on to....
October 11, 2002: An Italian journalist provides the U.S. embassy in Rome with copies of the actual documents showing a deal between Niger and Iraq. The embassy sends the documents to both the CIA and INR (the State Department's intelligence arm).
October 15, 2002: The INR Iraq nuclear analyst immediately emails other intelligence analysts offering to provide copies of the documents at a meeting already scheduled for the next day. The INR analyst is suspicious of the purported agreement because "it bears a funky Emb. of Niger stamp" and because a companion document mentions a military campaign against major world powers that includes both Iran and Iraq and is being orchestrated through the Nigerien embassy in Rome.
The INR analyst dryly suggests that this is "completely implausible."
October 16, 2002: The intelligence folks have their scheduled meeting. The documents are handed out to everyone. The CIA rep takes a copy, files it away, and promptly forgets it exists.
And now for the punch line. Why did the CIA analysts not even bother to look at these documents? Because "they believed that the foreign government service reporting was verbatim text and did not think it would advance the story on the alleged uranium deal."
Got that? They just assumed that the original report was a verbatim transcript so they didn't bother looking at the documents themselves — despite the fact that INR had already alerted them that the text and formatting of the source documents made them suspect.
That's some high quality analysis there. And we all know the rest of the story: three months later George Bush included the uranium story in his State of the Union address despite the fact that (a) INR had said two weeks previously in an email that the documents were "clearly a forgery," (b) the CIA didn't think British reporting on this issue was "credible," and (c) the uranium reporting from elsewhere in Africa was both old and "fragmentary."
Remember this the next time you hear about a CIA report. This is the same agency that decided not to bother looking at original source documents in the Niger uranium fiasco because they just assumed there wouldn't be anything new in them. And it turns out that without the evidence of those documents, the conclusion of the CIA (five months after the State of the Union address) was that "we no longer believe...that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."
Your tax dollars at work.
I agree. The scrutiny we employ and the concern we have for all public policy, regardless of the motivations that drive said policy, can only improve public policy in the long run. Which is part of the reason why it's so much fun to thrash stuff out in forums - we actually do effect public policy by debating it.glaucon said:I agree. I was just trying to point out that while we're comparing say, two organized states' actions where one operates under the guise of 'Religion' and another under that of 'Saviour', ultimately if the methodologies do not differ that much, then regardless of what we choose to call them, the concern should be for the behaviour and its effects.
Fascinating Iraq war timeline:
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm