Iraq can thank George Bush

#126
#126
TreeGreen said:
but the next time someone convinces the US we need to go to war how can we be sure our intelligence is even accurate? How can we be sure we aren't just being mislead?

Have we realized our intelligence agencies need a shake-down?
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, our intelligence failures in this case have actually strengthened our intelligence efforts now. We got a first hand demonstration of some serious problems with our and other countries' intelligence programs.
 
#127
#127
volinbham said:
Oddly enough, our intelligence failures in this case have actually strengthened our intelligence efforts now. We got a first hand demonstration of some serious problems with our and other countries' intelligence programs.
Click to expand...
frankly, it was the second shoe to drop in the Clinton admin's utter crippling of our intel services. Thankfully, we've knee jerked the other direction.
 
#128
#128
and with the selection of Leon Panetta, the CIA will once again be searching for oil deposits like they did during Carter.
 
#129
#129
BigPapaVol said:
frankly, it was the second shoe to drop in the Clinton admin's utter crippling of our intel services. Thankfully, we've knee jerked the other direction.
Click to expand...

The intel failure aren't completely laid at the feet of Clinton. The politicization of the CIA, NSA, and FBI had something to do with it as well. Cheney and Rumsfield were notorious for classifying and declassifying sections of reports and whole reports themselves to fit in line with their political objectives. I refuse to believe somebody high up didn't know the whole WMD thing was complete BS. Whether you want to admit it or not, Iraq was sold as a threat on shakey intel, and then justified after-the-fact as an operation of liberation.

Perhaps if the leaders were more involved with what to do after MCO, instead of worrying about getting the first boot in country, things would have gone a little better.
 
#130
#130
rjd970 said:
The intel failure aren't completely laid at the feet of Clinton. The politicization of the CIA, NSA, and FBI had something to do with it as well. Cheney and Rumsfield were notorious for classifying and declassifying sections of reports and whole reports themselves to fit in line with their political objectives. I refuse to believe somebody high up didn't know the whole WMD thing was complete BS. Whether you want to admit it or not, Iraq was sold as a threat on shakey intel, and then justified after-the-fact as an operation of liberation.

Perhaps if the leaders were more involved with what to do after MCO, instead of worrying about getting the first boot in country, things would have gone a little better.
Click to expand...
you have taken leave of your mind if you don't think the entire world believed WMD was a problem in Iraq. Your shaky intel point only serves to confirm the gutting that had occurred prior.

How can anyone have known if all we had was sigint and elint to help make judgments?
 
#131
#131
rjd970 said:
Whether you want to admit it or not, Iraq was sold as a threat on shakey intel, and then justified after-the-fact as an operation of liberation.
Click to expand...

You are rewriting history here - go back and look at pre-war speeches. Democratization of Iraq and the Middle East is a prominent part of the rationale. Likewise, violation of UN sanctions, support for terrorism and general threat to the area and world are all part of the deal. WMD sealed the deal and received much attention but the other stuff was ALWAYS part of the rationale.
 
#132
#132
BigPapaVol said:
you have taken leave of your mind if you don't think the entire world believed WMD was a problem in Iraq. Your shaky intel point only serves to confirm the gutting that had occurred prior.

How can anyone have known if all we had was sigint and elint to help make judgments?
Click to expand...

The better question to ask is if the entire world believed Iraq was the biggest threat in terms of WMD. Cheney and company led everybody to believe they were.

Again, I point to Woodward and Suskind's books and to the attrition that went on in the CIA with junior analysts who didn't paint intel pictures that fell in line with the the VP and SecDef wanted to see in the lead up of hostilities. It is not an accident that most of Powell's presentation to the UN was exaggerated, or outright fabricated.

Now, you can write off these books with a wave of the hand because you don't agree with the authors, but much of thier research has been confirmed, and their sources have been found to be extremely credible. I don't think the administration outright lied, they just didn't give the whole picture, and chose what intel they wanted to use based on political objectives, and classified or disregarded the rest.
 
#133
#133
volinbham said:
You are rewriting history here - go back and look at pre-war speeches. Democratization of Iraq and the Middle East is a prominent part of the rationale. Likewise, violation of UN sanctions, support for terrorism and general threat to the area and world are all part of the deal. WMD sealed the deal and received much attention but the other stuff was ALWAYS part of the rationale.
Click to expand...

No argument from me here. But like you said, WMD sealed the deal. Everything else that was stated can be said about any number of countries around the world.

WMD was always what was needed to garner the support needed for quick action. It legitimized Iraq as a credible threat that needed to be dealt with immediately.
 
#134
#134
rjd970 said:
The better question to ask is if the entire world believed Iraq was the biggest threat in terms of WMD. Cheney and company led everybody to believe they were.

Again, I point to Woodward and Suskind's books and to the attrition that went on in the CIA with junior analysts who didn't paint intel pictures that fell in line with the the VP and SecDef wanted to see in the lead up of hostilities. It is not an accident that most of Powell's presentation to the UN was exaggerated, or outright fabricated.

Now, you can write off these books with a wave of the hand because you don't agree with the authors, but much of thier research has been confirmed, and their sources have been found to be extremely credible. I don't think the administration outright lied, they just didn't give the whole picture, and chose what intel they wanted to use based on political objectives, and classified or disregarded the rest.
Click to expand...
Any intel guys writing books this soon after the goings on should be viewed with as jaundiced an eye as you can muster.
 
#140
#140
SavageOrangeJug said:
1. You are correct. They had the fourth largest army in the world, but we destroyed that in the Gulf War. This was a mop up operation on their military.

2. Rubbish? The Iraqi's hung Saddam. I'll give you three guesses who directed them to take such action. First two guesses don't count.

3. Yes, the war by definition of war, was indeed over. We did face a continued guerilla insurgency in our continued presence as occupation forces.

4. We have a forward base on Iran's backdoor. The Western World would be idiotic to give that advantage away. I doubt seriously we will walk away and let it founder.

You are the equivalent of an American terrorist. Spewing your slanted, leftist, propaganda, nothing more.


PS: A message for the boss,

vol_freak, the above statement cannot be accurately addressed with the current rules in place. Stating what is painfully obvious about the intelligence level of the poster who made it. Would result in a probable two week ban. Sometimes, we need to be able to call a spade a spade. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Click to expand...


1. Ok, we can multiply that ass & buggy count by 20 or 100 if you wish. Moot point......



2. According to Bush, "Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial -- the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime. Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. It is a testament to the Iraqi people's resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. This would not have been possible without the Iraqi people's determination to create a society governed by the rule of law.

Link

How do you know Bush had his twitchy finger on the trap door when he flat out denies it and gives credit to the Iraqi's? Can you provide a source? Who should we believe? A President or someone livings in their parents basement drinking dad's natty light.



3. We are on a rough and unfinished peacekeeping mission, hardly over by any account. My buddy is not over there making nearly a 100K as contract military accepting flowers and love bracelets from the Iraqi's. I doubt he would agree with you that its over, but I don't have that insider info like you.



4. I guess Bush could have told Maliki to say this too...

"We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and neighbours," Maliki said after a late-night meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Tehran.

"will not" are strong words.....

Link


Thats one way of sidestepping a friendly jab. Thanks!! I read the rules several years ago.

I expect nothing less than for you to declare anyone that questions your radical jibberish as a terrorist or a leftist commy b@$t@rd. That appears to be the only consistent answer you have.

I tend to be more of a radical centralist but thanks for the concern.







P.S. Thanks for the laughs.....
 
Last edited:
#141
#141
BigPapaVol said:
Where did the info come from?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Bob Woodward "Bush at War"

and Rons Suskind "The One Percent Doctrine"

Sources and and info in the books have been legitimate and proven to be true. We have had this discussion before and if you want to dismiss them at the wave of a hand then fine. But Cheney and Rumsfeld were both major players in deciding what intel should be released in the run up to hostilities and what intel should be kept classified and behind closed doors. Contrary to what you think and what the world supposedly thought, many in the intel community were extremely skeptical of the WMD tie in Iraq. Some were told to keep their mouth shut, and others were outright dismissed for not falling in line.
 
#142
#142
rjd970 said:
Bob Woodward "Bush at War"

and Rons Suskind "The One Percent Doctrine"

Sources and and info in the books have been legitimate and proven to be true. We have had this discussion before and if you want to dismiss them at the wave of a hand then fine. But Cheney and Rumsfeld were both major players in deciding what intel should be released in the run up to hostilities and what intel should be kept classified and behind closed doors. Contrary to what you think and what the world supposedly thought, many in the intel community were extremely skeptical of the WMD tie in Iraq. Some were told to keep their mouth shut, and others were outright dismissed for not falling in line.
Click to expand...

Yeah we know all about it. The vast right wing conspiracy strikes again.
 
#143
#143
Headed For Home said:
Yeah we know all about it. The vast right wing conspiracy strikes again.
Click to expand...

Standard, short-sighted, reactionary response.

Nobody said a thing about conspiracy, and when multiple sources are saying the same thing there is probably at least some truth to it. Smoke usually means fire.
 
#144
#144
rjd970 said:
Cheney and Rumsfeld were both major players in deciding what intel should be released in the run up to hostilities and what intel should be kept classified and behind closed doors.
Click to expand...
I would expect the SecDef to make such decisions, since that is encapsulated in his job description.

rjd970 said:
Contrary to what you think and what the world supposedly thought, many in the intel community were extremely skeptical of the WMD tie in Iraq. Some were told to keep their mouth shut, and others were outright dismissed for not falling in line.
Click to expand...
Many is a pretty vague term. The majority were of thought that Iraq did possess WMD capability. Major intel agencies have always been highly politicized. As for those who were dismissed after being told to keep their mouths shut...GOOD.

What we do in the defense world is not fun and games. There are certain times and places when one can respectfully question their superiors. "Dissent" in the lead up to war, is not a time to do so.

Those who were seperated over this had little to no hard evidence to renounce the intel...they, too, were working on hunches.
 
#145
#145
rjd970 said:
Standard, short-sighted, reactionary response.

Nobody said a thing about conspiracy, and when multiple sources are saying the same thing there is probably at least some truth to it. Smoke usually means fire.
Click to expand...

Kind of like Obama's ties to radicals and terrorists?
 
#146
#146
rjd970 said:
when multiple sources are saying the same thing there is probably at least some truth to it. Smoke usually means fire.
Click to expand...
You should hold yourself to that standard. I am pretty sure that multiple government intel departments (again, every major player in Western politics) were saying that Iraq had WMD.
 
#147
#147
If nothing else, the rules in this forum have forced people to come up with clever, and hilarious ways to call people idiots. Love it!
 
#148
#148
therealUT said:
I would expect the SecDef to make such decisions, since that is encapsulated in his job description.

I would too, but when it is done to achieve political goals there is a problem. Rumsfeld's job was to sell the case against Iraq, not give the entire story.


What we do in the defense world is not fun and games. There are certain times and places when one can respectfully question their superiors. "Dissent" in the lead up to war, is not a time to do so.

I think it is an especially good time to do so, given what you are getting yourself into. However, once troops are on the ground, they deserve everybody's complete support, even if the underlying policy is still being questioned.

Those who were seperated over this had little to no hard evidence to renounce the intel...they, too, were working on hunches.
Click to expand...

But their "hunches" weren't given as much publicity as the other "hunches". And I am not so sure the intel supporting the WMD case was all that "hard" given how completely wrong it was.
 
#149
#149
therealUT said:
You should hold yourself to that standard. I am pretty sure that multiple government intel departments (again, every major player in Western politics) were saying that Iraq had WMD.
Click to expand...

Which countries? Who? As far as I know it was just us and Great Britain leading the WMD charge.
 
#150
#150
KB5252 said:
Kind of like Obama's ties to radicals and terrorists?
Click to expand...

The difference here is Obama isn't actually a radical or terrorist on the same level as who he was being tied to. The WMD intel was obviously wrong.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top