Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 17, 2008 21:46:48 GMT -4
As I said a little earlier, Al Qaeda and other groups are concentrating much of their efforts in Iraq. Concentrating their funds, resources, and men there means they can't be used in attacks in the U.S. What some of the nay-sayers here view as a distraction many of the terrorists view as an essential conflict. They have focused their efforts there as a result, and this has helped make us safer here.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 17, 2008 23:37:36 GMT -4
As uncomfortable as it is, I have to take the middle ground here because both sides are sort of right. Pre-9/11 there was a major attack, or attempted attack every year from 1998 onwards, since 9/11 there have been none against the US or its interests outside of Iraq. (note here that there have been attacks against others, notibly the UK and Spain.) On that note it would appear that AQ and others are indeed concentrating their efforts on Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also have to note that OBL believes that the US can't and won't hold the course, that they don't have the guts to last out a prolonged fight and that if you give them a bloody nose they'll run away just like any other bully. This happened in Vietnam and Somalia and he believes that it will happen again, that if he can bloody the US's nose that they'll run away again, and he can stand there as the victor against two Super Powers. He believes that if he can stand up and show that he has defeated both super powers, the Eastern (Communist) way of life and the Western (Democratic) way of life, that this will prove to the world that Islam is the most powerful and greatest way of life and that people will flock to his banner and call. Whether he is right on this count only time will tell, but if the US runs then it will certainly strengthen his claim and call for Islamists around the world to rise up without fear of the US and the western world's reaction.
Having said all of that, I also believe that Bush should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, and it was only his vendetta against Saddam for the later's attempt to assassinate Bush the Elder, as well as Daddy's unfinished war that lead down that path. I think that Bush was gunning to invade Iraq, 9/11 or not, and that if anything 9/11 got in his way because he had to split his forces between Afghanistan and his primary target, Iraq. If Bush was really doing what was best for the US he would have concentrated on Afgahistan, ridding it of the Taliban and AQ, restoring it and setting up the country and people with services, roading, schooling and peace. Instead he has left the job there unfinished, the people are still struggling in poverty without ulities and education, the Taliban and AQ are regaining their lost strength and Bush is commanding a war on two fronts.
Quite clearly Bush is an idiot that should not have been let lose in charge of a paper bag, let along a country. He lead the US into a carefully created trap because he underestimated his opponent, and then instead of dealing with the situation at hand, he went off and made a bigger mess and trapped himself in that too. At this point there are few choices, either cut and run, leading to massive deaths and handing a strategic and possibly territorial win by the terrorists, probably giving them a large foothold in the centre of the Islamic Empire OBL wants to rebuild, or stay the course and take more causalties and flak. It's really a lose lose situation and all Americans can thank Bush for getting them into it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 18, 2008 11:08:53 GMT -4
I still believe that given the information available at the time it was the right thing to do, and that great good can eventually come from it.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 18, 2008 13:51:51 GMT -4
As I said a little earlier, Al Qaeda and other groups are concentrating much of their efforts in Iraq. Concentrating their funds, resources, and men there means they can't be used in attacks in the U.S. What some of the nay-sayers here view as a distraction many of the terrorists view as an essential conflict. They have focused their efforts there as a result, and this has helped make us safer here. I guess as long as the casualties aren't on American soil, then it's much better? Death casualties on 9/11: 2,819 Death casualites of Americans in Iraq: 4,057 Total death casualties in Iraq: 83,000 to 91,000 Or if the casualties aren't American? Doesn't being in Iraq just make it easier for the terrorists to kill Americans?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 18, 2008 17:57:36 GMT -4
If the casualties are trained servicemen who voluntarily entered their occupation, knew the risks, and had some capability to fight back then yes, that is better than civilians. And yes, though it sounds cold-blooded it is better to fight in someone else's house than in your own. And most of the Iraqi casualties are not the result of American servicemen killing them - they are the result of terrorists killing them.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 18, 2008 23:37:23 GMT -4
I still believe that given the information available at the time it was the right thing to do, and that great good can eventually come from it. I don't. The information at the time was sketchy at best and Bush knew that. They however relied on and spouted to the public only the information they wanted to hear and ignored the information that said anything to the contray, keeping it hidden. There was plenty of information saying they were wrong, and even a numberof people in the British and American Intelligence saying they were wrong, but anything that disagreed with Bush's desire of going in got ignored and brushed under the carpet. If the US public had known all of the information availible to Bush and co, they would never have supported the invasion. It was only because Bush and co keep back the information that contradicted their stance that they seemed to have a vaild case.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 19, 2008 10:37:29 GMT -4
I disagree. The whole world believed that he had the weapons. Even some of his own generals believed it. What seems clear indications to us today are seeen through hindsight. It's like viewing the clues that could have lead us to stop 9/11. Sure they seem obvious now, but they weren't at the time.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 19, 2008 16:29:21 GMT -4
I disagree. The whole world believed that he had the weapons. Even some of his own generals believed it. What seems clear indications to us today are seeen through hindsight. It's like viewing the clues that could have lead us to stop 9/11. Sure they seem obvious now, but they weren't at the time. But that wasn't the entire claim that Bush used. They KNEW that Saddam did not have and was not able to attempt a nuclear weapons programme. They KNEW that the claims that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear materials was untrue. They KNEW that the solo claims of a connection between members of AQ and the Iraqi Government were from high unreliable sources, were disputed, and weren't able to be verified as correct in any way. They KNEW there was no solid connection between Iraq and terrorism targeting the US or its interests. They deliberately ignored and covered all of this up, instead using out of date and unverified dodgy intelligence that even their own agents found suspect and told them was suspect. The only belief as to what Iraq had that was justified is that Iraq had a stockpile of chemical weapons, but there was no evidence that those weapons would be given to any hostile group, or used to directly or indirectly to attack the US or UK. As such there was no threat.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 19, 2008 17:58:37 GMT -4
Iraq was attempting to obtain nuclear materials. The yellowcake claim was correct. Iraq was a supporter of terrorism and had provided sanctuary for terrorists who directly attacked Americans. There were connections between Al Qaeda leadership and Iraq.
The only miscalculation was as to the degree and imenence of the threat, not as to whether Iraq was a threat or not.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 19, 2008 20:54:29 GMT -4
Iraq was attempting to obtain nuclear materials. The yellowcake claim was correct. No it was based on faked documents and reported belief. The only evidence is that a member of the Iraqi Government who had previous nuclear experience went to Niger as part of a tour of African countries that the Iraqia claim was to convince them to cease a ban on flights to Iraq. The Niger Government claims that trade of any sort was never discussed due to the UN Sanctions but that they believed that Iraq might want to talk about it in the future. The only document supposedly disputing their version of events has been proven to be fake and the person that the CIA sent to investigate the matter reported back saying that there was no evidence of any trade or request for Uranium. That report was on at least Cheney's desk at the time of the speech and was ignored. Since then both the CIA and White House have admitted getting it wrong. Iraq's support was limited to paying amounts to the families of palestian sucide bombers. This is nowehere near the levels of support for State Sponsered Terrorism that Iran, Lybia and Syria are or have been involved in. There is no evidence that Iraq has ever directly supported any Terrorist organisations. Having said that, Iraq did conduct terror operations of it's own, including the attempt on Bush the Elder as previously noted. As to their providing sanuary for Terrorists, the only "Terrorist" they were "protecting" was Abu Abbas who had previously lived in Gaza and Tunisa (Should they be invaded as well?) and didn't move to Iraq until 1994, well after the US inditements against him expired. It's also of note that there is arguement that under the Oslo Peace Accords he was absolved of his actions. At the most you could say they provided sanctary for an ex-terrorist. The other terrorist they were supposed to be "protecting" was an Iraqi, which leads to the obvious question, why shouldn't his own country which didn't have any form of extradition treaty with the US not keep him? Reports on whether he was jailed in Iraq vary, but claims he was working for the Iraqi Government seem to be heresay at the best. Again these are vauge and much of what we know about it has come since 2003. Prior to the 2003 there was no strong evidence of any connection. There is no evidence of any formal connection, merely a number of meetings in the early 90's that never come to anything and a handful of Iraqis who have been involved in AQ over the years (does that mean that since there are Egyptians in AQ the Egyptian Government is connected to AQ?) In fact the biggest connection between the two appears to have occured after Bush's administration claimed they were connected and was threatening invasion. At that point Saddam seems to have allowed a large number of AQ fighters into Iraq to help defend it against US attack. Personally I don't believe it was a miscalutation at all. They wanted to attack Iraq so they built it up to be a bigger threat that it really was, and they knew it. They didn't lie exactly, but they certainly spun the truth and hid any evidence that disagreed or would weaken with their case.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 19, 2008 23:09:27 GMT -4
There were some forged documents that seemed to support the claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake, but that was not the basis for the President's inclusion of the claim in the State of the Union speech, in which the President said that sources in the UK had made the report. The UK continues to stand by the accuracy of that claim. The person you refer to dispatched to check on the rumor was sent because of who he was married to rather than any actual qualifications, did no actual investigation of it beyond questioning Nigerian officials, and was a Bush critic long before he was sent. Obviously he was the wrong choice for the job. The claim is accurate - Iraq was attempting to purchase nuclear materials.
As you confirm, Iraq was harboring terrorists who had struck directly at American targets and providing support to other terrorists - the most public aspect of which was their payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Before 9/11, when individuals were harbored in Gaza or Tunisia the US was willing to look the other way. After 9/11 this changed, and rightfully so.
Meetings with AQ leaders and the Egyptian government are of course matters of some concern. Meetings with a much more hostile nation like Iraq were of obviously greater concern.
As I said, we're viewing the build up to the war in hindsight, with much better knowledge of what was going on in Iraq because we have their captured records and our own people on the ground. We cannot judge the actions of the administration in the context of what we know now - we must instead, if we are to judge them at all, judge them on what they knew then.
|
|
|
Post by EdmondDantes on May 20, 2008 14:26:49 GMT -4
There were some forged documents that seemed to support the claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake, but that was not the basis for the President's inclusion of the claim in the State of the Union speech, in which the President said that sources in the UK had made the report. The UK continues to stand by the accuracy of that claim. The person you refer to dispatched to check on the rumor was sent because of who he was married to rather than any actual qualifications, did no actual investigation of it beyond questioning Nigerian officials, and was a Bush critic long before he was sent. Obviously he was the wrong choice for the job. The claim is accurate - Iraq was attempting to purchase nuclear materials. You are correct. That was Joe Wilson and his claims have not held up. First, he issued no written report on his return, so there was no report by him sitting on Cheney's desk. Second, when he reported to the CIA, not only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report. The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger. When asked how Wilson 'knew' that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved 'a little literary flair. And as you say, the statement in the State of the Union Address was based on British Intelligence which the U.K. still stands behind. It was not based on the forged documents.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 20, 2008 16:44:21 GMT -4
You are both incorrect. Villifying Joe Wilson doesn't help your argument.
So why do you suppose President Bush would use the British intelligence as the source of his claim and not use US intelligence on the subject? Because US intelligence sources were already warning the administration of the yellow cake claims long before the State of the Union Address.
Assistant to the President For National Security Affairs, Steven Hadley:
George Tenet had a brief telephone conversation with me during the clearance process for the October 7 (2002) Cincinnati speech. This was the one -- he asked that any reference to Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium from sources from Africa to be deleted from the speech. The language he was referring to when he made that call was language that said the following -- and I'll just quote it -- "And the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa, and a central ingredient in the enrichment process."
Based on DCI Tenet's request, the sentence was deleted from the Cincinnati speech, when he said he did not want the President to be a fact witness for that statement. To my best recollection, we did not have any discussion about the UK or UK sources or anything else at that time.
The specific CIA response was this: "the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."
and, from October 6, 2002...
"The evidence is weak ...The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory ... and we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them the Africa story is overblown and telling them this one of the two issues where we differed with the British."
So the president put it in the speech anyway, because he was warmongering and he could use the British to do his dirty work. This is a true dirty trick.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 20, 2008 16:48:19 GMT -4
So why do the Brits continue to stand by their intelligence? And which do you feel had higher quality intelligence on the Middle East at the time - the Brits or the US?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 20, 2008 16:58:12 GMT -4
It doesn't matter. The president used information that his own sources had already discounted. While his specific words may have been true (that the British thought it was true), he used them as part of a broad strategy to paint a false picture of Iraq in the run-up to the war.
Bush wanted war with Iraq from before his first day in office. He used every tool at his disposal to get a war with Iraq. Using the phony yellow cake claim was one of many dirty tricks used.
As far as I know, the British have never provided corroborating evidence to support their claim.
|
|