Report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises"....

[Donnyho]

..... or so says the Senate Intelligence report released yesterday

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Thoughts?

[xxlt]

If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush's "inner circle" are religious men they should be praying fervently everyday that they aren't indicted and imprisoned. It is amazing too me that they have escaped criticism in large part up to this point, not to mention legal consequences.

I know, I know - I hate America.

The report is a day late and a dollar short, but at least maybe it is another step toward loyalists accepting what really happened, if not seeing their heros held accountable.

God Bless America.

[Jumbro]

..... or so says the Senate Intelligence report released yesterday

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Thoughts?

My only thought is that you used Senate and Intelligence in the same sentence. Something HAS to be wrong with it using that "logic"

[warsteiner138]

Gulf of Tonkin incident

It is standard to use what ever means neccessary to achieve your goals.

What does it even matter? Most people have no idea what is going on. They deserve to be mislead.

When will people get mad and wake up.

[EatonFan]

Considering who wrote the article (Just google the name... you'll see that this reporter likes to pound out anit-war stuff), that the report itself is not linked in the story, and only opinion (and only one dissenting paragraph, with the rest "supporting" the assertions made) is given, I do not hold this article in high regard.

However, I do believe Bush pushed his agenda for war, but that's a very political thing to do. All politicians push the envelope of the truth to get what they want. We will really never know just exactly what intelligence the President was given to make his decisions, and what he was not given. He may have been fed only intelligence that supported going to war, or he may have been given both. We just don't know. A lot of people like to guess, and they can point to this or that intelligence, but what really matters is what Bush SAW and DELIBERATED on. Nothing else.

[thefo0]

If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush's "inner circle" are religious men they should be praying fervently everyday that they aren't indicted and imprisoned.

Actually, they should probably pray for forgiveness from their god instead. It seems to me that they have violated the ideals of the "Just War Theory."

[barryllium]

Lest us not forget these findings:
Iraq had no WMD's:
United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1
International Atomic Energy Agency - http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

Iraq and Al-Qaeda had no links:
CIA - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1
CIA Kerr Group - http://irrationallyinformed.com//pdfcollection/20040729_Kerr_Report.pdf

Evidence was manipulated to strengthen case for war
Defense Department - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

Iraqi National Congress (formed with aid and direction of US) provided false intelligence about connections with al-Qaeda to build support for a U.S. invasion
Defense Department - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm and http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/4/mccollam-list.asp

[Jumbro]

Here is my stance (As if anyone wanted to hear it):

Maybe we should have stayed in Afghanistan and not gone to Iraq and maybe the reasons for going to Iraq were wool over our eyes. BUT, Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and I believe that is a GREAT thing for the world. THe world is safer now without him. So no matter how we got there, or why, at least one VERY possitive thing came out of it! How else would he have gotten out of power? He very easily, and willingly, could have become as bad as Hitler (some believe he already was).

[GoldenArm9]

..... or so says the Senate Intelligence report released yesterday

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Thoughts?

This statement from this article
"The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President **** Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time." goes along with this statement from this article ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812066,00.html
"I had learned from our Vietnam experience," he explained, "how dangerous it can be when travel is substituted for thought."

And you know what's funny here ...we had Dems as President's for most of the Vietnam war ..why weren't Kennedy and Johnson jailed ..?:hmm:
When the Vietnam conflict started, John F. Kennedy was president. Lyndon B. Johnson was president when it became full scale and Richard M. Nixon was president and responsible for bringing our troops home.

[pookdogg7]

This statement from this article
"The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President **** Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time." goes along with this statement from this article ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812066,00.html
"I had learned from our Vietnam experience," he explained, "how dangerous it can be when travel is substituted for thought."

And you know what's funny here ...we had Dems as President's for most of the Vietnam war ..why weren't Kennedy and Johnson jailed ..?:hmm:
When the Vietnam conflict started, John F. Kennedy was president. Lyndon B. Johnson was president when it became full scale and Richard M. Nixon was president and responsible for bringing our troops home.

Oh, the Vietnam War...there are a few different start dates but the first date that combat soldiers landed was March 8th, 1965. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and did not support the war.

Johnson should've been jailed for his role in the Kennedy assassination, anyways. :ninja:

[wildcats forever]

If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush's "inner circle" are religious men they should be praying fervently everyday that they aren't indicted and imprisoned. It is amazing too me that they have escaped criticism in large part up to this point, not to mention legal consequences.

I know, I know - I hate America.

The report is a day late and a dollar short, but at least maybe it is another step toward loyalists accepting what really happened, if not seeing their heros held accountable.

God Bless America.

It is doubtful they will ever be held accountable in the same vein that Clinton was for his "sins". Time has been on their side here, allowing confusion to set in, an excellent tactic by the way, further complicating the issue. Most likely it will be swept aside in favor of "unifying" our country as our focus will be directed toward cleaning up the many piles of ineptitude and misinformation.

[kevin28_1962]

When the Vietnam conflict started, John F. Kennedy was president. Lyndon B. Johnson was president when it became full scale and Richard M. Nixon was president and responsible for bringing our troops home.

Actually regarding Vietnam we received a request from the French for assistance in Vietnam back in 1950 (Truman). In 1956 (Eisenhower) we had US military "advisors" over training the South Vietnamese Army. 1961 (JFK) special forces were sent into Vietnam and that started the general build up of troops. 1964 (LBJ) the USS Maddox was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin and two days later the USS Turner Joy was attacked which led to retaliatory air strikes thus starting our full involvement into the Vietnam conflict.

You cannot fully blame the Dem's for the Vietnam escalation. Eisenhower had a foreign policy theory that was labeled "The domino theory" (http://www.historytools.org/sources/domino.html)

[tbone77]

Considering who wrote the article (Just google the name... you'll see that this reporter likes to pound out anit-war stuff), that the report itself is not linked in the story, and only opinion (and only one dissenting paragraph, with the rest "supporting" the assertions made) is given, I do not hold this article in high regard.

However, I do believe Bush pushed his agenda for war, but that's a very political thing to do. All politicians push the envelope of the truth to get what they want. We will really never know just exactly what intelligence the President was given to make his decisions, and what he was not given. He may have been fed only intelligence that supported going to war, or he may have been given both. We just don't know. A lot of people like to guess, and they can point to this or that intelligence, but what really matters is what Bush SAW and DELIBERATED on. Nothing else.

What difference does it make? We all know the intel was crap, yet the chickenhawks still declare that if they knew then what they knew now they would still do it again. :dunce:

[Whatever]

..... or so says the Senate Intelligence report released yesterday

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Thoughts?

http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

OMG...Bush lied to us about the WMD's! I haven't heard about this until just now!

[tbone77]

Here is my stance (As if anyone wanted to hear it):

Maybe we should have stayed in Afghanistan and not gone to Iraq and maybe the reasons for going to Iraq were wool over our eyes. BUT, Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and I believe that is a GREAT thing for the world. THe world is safer now without him. So no matter how we got there, or why, at least one VERY possitive thing came out of it! How else would he have gotten out of power? He very easily, and willingly, could have become as bad as Hitler (some believe he already was).

If the world is safer without Saddam why have we increased military spending with him gone. Not to undermine the more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers (90,000 Iraqi civilian causualties) who have died in the ongoing violence in your safer world, and another 4.5 million refugees, i.e. about 20% of the Iraq population, displaced. And nevermind the new Shi'ite alliance between Maliki and our "sworn enemy" in Iran (who ironically wants to hold peace talks with the world). Nevermind Bin Laden and his thugs still on the loose somewhere. Nevermind the tribal areas in Pakistan which might be the greatest threat to U.S. security (did I mention that Pakistan already has a nuclear bomb?)

Maybe we are saving the Iraqi people from themselves? I don't get it. I'm looking at the bigger picture. Exactly how is it safer now (Are less people dead? less hazardous IED and cluster bombs waiting for civilians to accidentally detonate? more peace between Israel and its neighbors? a stronger U.S. military?? maybe you can clarify that talking point for me. Maybe we killed an "evil person" (who we supplied with weapons a couple decades ago) and that's why it's good for you. I don't get it.

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/us-spending-2001-2009.png

*Edit*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/iraq-casualties-iraq-cos_n_92303.html AS OF MARCH 2008...
8,000: Number of Iraqi military and police killed since June 2003. [Brookings Institute, Iraq Index, March 13, 2008]

82,000-89,000: Estimate of Iraqi civilians casualties from violence since the beginning of the Iraq War. [Iraq Body Count]

4.5 Million: Number of Iraqi refugees both inside and outside the country. [Washington Post, 3/17/08]

61: Percent of Iraqis that believe the U.S. military presence makes the security situation in Iraq worse. [Agence France-Presse, 3/17/08]

[Whatever]

If the world is safer without Saddam why have we increased military spending with him gone. Not to undermine the more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers (1,000,000 Iraqis) who have died in the ongoing violence in your safer world, and another 10-20% of the Iraq population internally displaced. And nevermind the new Shi'ite alliance between Maliki and our "sworn enemy" in Iran (who ironically wants to hold peace talks with the world). Nevermind Bin Laden and his thugs still on the loose somewhere. Nevermind the tribal areas in Pakistan which might be the greatest threat to U.S. security (did I mention that Pakistan already has a nuclear bomb?)

Maybe we are saving the Iraqi people from themselves? I don't get it. I'm looking at the bigger picture. Exactly how is it safer now (Are less people dead? less hazardous IED and cluster bombs waiting for civilians to accidentally detonate? more peace between Israel and its neighbors? a stronger U.S. military?? maybe you can clarify that talking point for me. Maybe we killed an "evil person" (who we supplied with weapons a couple decades ago) and that's why it's good for you. I don't get it.

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/us-spending-2001-2009.png

How long did we co-occupy Germany with our sworn enemies,the Russians?

[tbone77]

Actually regarding Vietnam we received a request from the French for assistance in Vietnam back in 1950 (Truman). In 1956 (Eisenhower) we had US military "advisors" over training the South Vietnamese Army. 1961 (JFK) special forces were sent into Vietnam and that started the general build up of troops. 1964 (LBJ) the USS Maddox was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin and two days later the USS Turner Joy was attacked which led to retaliatory air strikes thus starting our full involvement into the Vietnam conflict.

You cannot fully blame the Dem's for the Vietnam escalation. Eisenhower had a foreign policy theory that was labeled "The domino theory" (http://www.historytools.org/sources/domino.html)

NSA declassified documents in 2005 provide evidence that the alleged 1964 attack on U.S. warships by North Vietnamese in Gulf of Tonkin was actually false pretense used by the U.S. government to escalate bombing and troop deployments in the Vietnam War.

According to the NSA, no attack happened that night at Gulf of Tonkin. There was however a "compund of analytic errors" (sound familiar ;)), and the erroneous story was subsequently propagated by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara for many years even under oath. Check out the declassified information http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/relea00012.pdf. I guess NSA decided to come clean in 2005 after the blunder in Iraq.

Here is an excerpt:
The NSA report declassified in 2005 described how "the two destroyers (USS Maddox and Turner Joy) gyrated wildly in the dark waters of the Gulf of Tonkin, the Turner Joy firing over 300 rounds madly...it was this high-speed gyrating by the American warships through the waters that created all the additional sonar reports of more torpedoes."

Basically they were firing at their own shadows, kind of like the Army firing madly at Pat Tillman exactly 40 years later in Afghanistan and splitting his head wide open. The main difference in 1964 was that the Navy was firing at fish as Lyndon Johnson confessed four years after the fact, "Hell, those damn stupid sailors were just shooting at fish."

[Eleden]

Here is my stance (As if anyone wanted to hear it):

Maybe we should have stayed in Afghanistan and not gone to Iraq and maybe the reasons for going to Iraq were wool over our eyes. BUT, Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and I believe that is a GREAT thing for the world. THe world is safer now without him. So no matter how we got there, or why, at least one VERY possitive thing came out of it! How else would he have gotten out of power? He very easily, and willingly, could have become as bad as Hitler (some believe he already was).

The world is in no way safer than it was before Saddam's regime was toppled.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al-Qaeda who ships their freshly trained "troops" off to Europe to blow themselves up. If anything, invading Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place and has even aided terrorist activities throughout the world. The more unstable the Middle East is, the better the conditions for spreading hate and terrorism.

Too bad profits come before common sense.

EDIT: Oh and just for kicks... here's a good article on the issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html

[warsteiner138]

Iraq was a great counter weight against Iran.

I would have two weak enemies than one strong one.

But we are missing the point of the war.

How else are we suppose to spread permanent US military bases and "democracy" through the Middle East.

[Samhain]

Iraq was a great counter weight against Iran.

I would have two weak enemies than one strong one.

But we are missing the point of the war.

How else are we suppose to spread permanent US military bases and "democracy" through the Middle East.

That's one big reason why I don't see us doing a full scale pullout anytime soon. I heard somewhere that the embassy we are building over there is the largest and most expensive ever built. I don't see our government just letting that one slide.

[xxlt]

That's one big reason why I don't see us doing a full scale pullout anytime soon. I heard somewhere that the embassy we are building over there is the largest and most expensive ever built. I don't see our government just letting that one slide.

The contractors got paid, so that is all that matters. They could give the embassy to the Iraqi people as a sign of affection - as if killing 100,000+ of them wasn't enough of a sign - or they could just blow it up in the spirit of "if you can't beat them, join them."

[jamiethelanky]

why weren't Kennedy... jailed ..?:hmm:

He was shot.

[VCU Rams]

He was shot.

Not by Lee Harvey Oswald though. :ninja:

[kevin28_1962]

Not by Lee Harvey Oswald though. :ninja:

I smell a conspiracy

[Beaker]

Whats amazing to me is that people even hold up an ideal of a "just war". The entire concept of war itself is entirely unjustifiable. But what saddam was doing to humans was equally unjust. Removing him from power was a good thing.

[VCU Rams]

I smell a conspiracy

Lol, I was merely bringing up a rather great debate we had earlier this year. :thumbsup: