Iraq War a Mistake

[Fast Eddie B]

A complicated mess.

Sometimes strongmen end up with civil strife: see Assad in Syria.

And some of that strife is spillover from our intervention.

I guess.

Like I said, complicated.

 

[Upchurch]

It's a damn shame the members of Congress in 2003 were not as omniscient as several of the posters here on ISF claim to have been.

There is no question that the post-911 jingoism in Washington was a problem and kept people from either speaking up or thinking critically. Of course, it did not take omniscience to see that the sudden shift in focus from Bin Laden to Saddam was more political in nature than in response to the actual threat they posed.

 

[RandFan]

I'm guessing you didn't read the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq prewar intilligence, then.

As for Clarke, I found one particular claim of his disturbing, and it called into question his entire credibility. When asked on 60 Minutes about whether his claims were partisan in nature, Clarke replied oddly:

It was a rather odd circumlocution that bugged me at the time. Why didn't he simply say something like, "I'm a registered Republican," or, "I voted for Bush." So I looked it up, and guess what? Clarke had no other option, because there was no Democratic primary in Virginia in 2000.

Clarke made a statement that, while literally true, was clearly intended to create the false impression that his party loyalty was with the Republicans.

No, I didn't read the report. I've read commentary by people on both sides who have responded to the report.

You looked it up? What a gotcha. Good job.

Let's back up. Provide an example of where Clarke lied or obfuscated that doesn't require you to play psychologist or mind reader. Fair?

 

[RandFan]

There is no question that the post-911 jingoism in Washington was a problem and kept people from either speaking up or thinking critically. Of course, it did not take omniscience to see that the sudden shift in focus from Bin Laden to Saddam was more political in nature than in response to the actual threat they posed.

^^ This. A million times.

Fear is a powerful tool. Which is why there is a word for politicians who use it. Demagogue. Republicans love to demagogue our safety. They are effective at it also. Does this mean that Democrats are to some extent without principle. Yes, then again, some are not sure. It's the fear that sways them.

dem·a·gogue a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

 

[RandFan]

BWHAHA!!! I won't vote for any who voted for the Iraq war = atrocities!

I think that This attitude of hysterical overwrought hyperbole on the internet is probably more instrumental in the atrocities carried out in America than anything else. Amazing!

The word of the day is "fatuous."

No reason to bloviate, sport, just say no.

No it just means I won't vote for Lindsey Graham or Hillary Clinton....

I know: ATROCITIES!!

/man he just really *********** typed that, and I think Randfan was serious about it!

16.5 I can't find anything here to respond to. Do you have a logically valid argument to rebut my post?

 

[RandFan]

No, not right.

Not sure where you get that from.

Who did you vote for in the last 4 presidential elections? Who would you like to vote for?

 

[RandFan]

"it is a TRICK question."

My Cousin Vinny

Does your voting conviction mean that you voted for Obama twice since Obama voted against the Iraq War Resolution?
The hilited part is wrong.......

In the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, candidates Representatives Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, then-Senator Barack Obama (Now President of the United States), Senators Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Mike Gravel were some of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq War.

 

[Biscuit]

Bush and Co were not mislead into the war by faulty intelligence, they used faulty intelligence to mislead the public. Knowing what we know now Bush would have still invaded because what we know now he knew then.

The Iraq war at its heart was not an intelligence failure. Bush, Cheney, and their comrades were hell-bent on invading Iraq—not because of inaccurate intelligence, but because of their own assumptions and desires. The war did not happen because of bad intel. Consequently, asking whether the invasion should have happened knowing what is now known is an irrelevant exercise. For the Bush-Cheney gang, it truly did not matter what the intelligence said. They were not victims. They were the perps.

link

 

[RandFan]

The Iraq war at its heart was not an intelligence failure. Bush, Cheney, and their comrades were hell-bent on invading Iraq—not because of inaccurate intelligence, but because of their own assumptions and desires. The war did not happen because of bad intel. Consequently, asking whether the invasion should have happened knowing what is now known is an irrelevant exercise. For the Bush-Cheney gang, it truly did not matter what the intelligence said. They were not victims. They were the perps.

Great point. Before Cheney took office as VP he was working to find a way to start a war in Iraq.

 

[Brainster]

No, I didn't read the report. I've read commentary by people on both sides who have responded to the report.

Okay, so you at least agree that the intelligence agencies saw Wilson's report as confirming the yellowcake story at the time?

As for Wilson's credibility, here's what the Intelligence Committee said back in 2004 about Wilson:

Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged."

You looked it up? What a gotcha. Good job.

Let's back up. Provide an example of where Clarke lied or obfuscated that doesn't require you to play psychologist or mind reader. Fair?

You admit that you were gulled in the past. Perhaps the problem is that you are still easily duped, just by different people these days.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And now you find Plame, Wilson and Clarke credible?

Yes, actually, I do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's fair. I cannot falsify why I think what I think.

That said, when I was in favor of the invasion I had a lot of cognitive dissonance. Like my belief in god my allegiance to the GOP was one of faith and indoctrination (parents staunchly conservative). I employed a lot of cognitive traps to sooth my dissonance.

My journey out of religion gave me an object lesson for how to assess claims and ideas. If it causes me cognitive dissonance then I try to find out why.

I'm not a Democrat. There is much about Democrats and liberals I despise. I seriously dislike Hillary and her husband. I hate that anti-GMO BS. I have a strong dislike of sex-negative feminists and their fascist like behavior. I seriously despise the dishonest tactics of many SJW's.

When I changed politically I was forced to re-examine my views about things like 9/11. This time, instead of avoiding uncomfortable truths I sought them out. I studied the claims.

I have no cognitive dissonance when it comes to my views of Plame, Wilson and Clarke. I could still be wrong. Lacking cognitive dissonance is only proof of a lack of mental conflict. However, what I'm not is lazy when it comes to facts that tend to challenge my beliefs.

Not to mention Wilson had no motive to write his op-ed other than whistle blowing on the Bush yellow cake fabrication.

That Libby was found guilty of covering up the outing Plame certainly has weight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Verdict

During his media appearance outside the courtroom after the verdict in the Libby case, Fitzgerald fielded questions from the press about others involved in the Plame affair and in the CIA leak grand jury investigation, such as Armitage and Cheney, whom he had already described as under "a cloud", as already addressed in his conduct of the case and in his closing arguments in court.[92][93][94][95]

And Clarke was right that Rice ignored the PDB, ignored his warnings pre-911, and it would seem the Bush admin had indeed wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I used to teach 5th grade.
I was teaching when Gulf War Part 2 started.

• I explained it this way.
• In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwaitt.
• The world, lead by the US said, "You can't do that! Get out we'll get you out."
• He didn't leave, so we got him out.
• We made him sign a treaty. He agreed to do this, that and the other thing. SH also agreed not to do this, that and this other thing. One of those things was make WMDs. If you do one of those things you're not supposed to do, we'll come kick your butt again.
• Bush (the second) thought he was making them - thus, violating the treaty.
• Bush said, don't do that!
• Bush was sure he was making WMDs and violating the agreement, so Bush decided to go in and kick his butt.

So, there's that aspect of all of this - violating the treaty (in Bush & Co.'s minds at least)

If there was a valid reason to take out Saddam, why the need to make stuff up to build the case?

They knew damn well Saddam was not a direct threat to the US.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay, so you at least agree that the intelligence agencies saw Wilson's report as confirming the yellowcake story at the time?

As for Wilson's credibility, here's what the Intelligence Committee said back in 2004 about Wilson:...

If Wilson's op ed was so easily discredited, why the need to out his wife to make Wilson look bad? Why not just present the supporting information?

 

[pgwenthold]

I remember in the Frontline episode on the Iraq war intelligence, they were talking about Colin Powell's preparation for his presentation to the UN. He gave his first presentation to Bush, giving the evidence that he had, and Bush's response was, "Is that all you got?" IOW, even he knew that an honest presentation wouldn't sell. They had to jazz it up, and make the claims stronger than could be honestly justified.

 

[RandFan]

Okay, so you at least agree that the intelligence agencies saw Wilson's report as confirming the yellowcake story at the time?

Okay, so you at least agree that that the intelligence agencies were wrong and Wilson was correct? You also agree that in spite of a tissue thin self serving basis we damn well should have acted on Wilson's report and not dismissed it out of hand because at the end of the day he was correct, wouldn't you agree?

As for Wilson's credibility, here's what the Intelligence Committee said back in 2004 about Wilson:

Ask most any detective and they will tell you that there are almost always anomalies when it comes to memory. You are hanging your entire hypothesis on the idea that there is a single contradiction in Wilson's testimony? You are throwing out all evidence that does not fit with your bias and clinging to a single anecdote is hardly skeptical or critical.

Your Memory Might Not Be As Powerful As You Think

A significant number of Americans believe that memory is more powerful, objective and reliable than it actually is, a new survey finds. Some memory myths are so pervasive that up to 83 percent of people believe them.

Let's cut to the chase, cite the relevant portion of the report where the committee concludes that Wilson lied?

In the push for the 2003 war with Iraq, Bush administration officials, including President George W. Bush himself in his State of the Union 2003 speech, cited evidence that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from the African nation of Niger. However, Mohamed ElBaradei of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) looked at the evidence and stated that it was obviously forged and a year earlier the CIA found the evidence to be unreliable. [1][2]

(wiki used for information only. the sources are footnoted and included see hyperlinks)

Let's back up. Provide an example of where Clarke lied or obfuscated that doesn't require you to play psychologist or mind reader. Fair?

You admit that you were gulled in the past. Perhaps the problem is that you are still easily duped, just by different people these days.

This is called a dodge or red herring. The way it works is that when someone asks you a question you accuse the person of some error. It's also a personal attack in an attempt to poison the well.

Care to answer the question (I doubt you can)?

 

[RandFan]

Not to mention Wilson had no motive to write his op-ed other than whistle blowing on the Bush yellow cake fabrication.

That Libby was found guilty of covering up the outing Plame certainly has weight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Verdict

And Clarke was right that Rice ignored the PDB, ignored his warnings pre-911, and it would seem the Bush admin had indeed wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.

Other than some Yellow cake that could not be used for WMD, there was no yellow cake nor intent to get Yellow cake. Snopes (though, Clarke said something that was wrong so the fact that there was no intent to acquire Yellow cake doesn't matter according to brainster.

Agreed about Libby.

Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'"

 

[Brainster]

Okay, so you at least agree that that the intelligence agencies were wrong and Wilson was correct? You also agree that in spite of a tissue thin self serving basis we damn well should have acted on Wilson's report and not dismissed it out of hand because at the end of the day he was correct, wouldn't you agree?

Correct when? When he told the CIA that the diplomats in Niger had confirmed contact with Iraqi officials? This was the important part of what Wilson discovered, despite the fact that he himself was too stupid to recognize it at the time.

Ask most any detective and they will tell you that there are almost always anomalies when it comes to memory. You are hanging your entire hypothesis on the idea that there is a single contradiction in Wilson's testimony? You are throwing out all evidence that does not fit with your bias and clinging to a single anecdote is hardly skeptical or critical.

Wilson became important and Plame was revealed as a CIA agent precisely because of the Washington Post article. He claimed in that article that he knew the documents may have been forged, because the names were wrong and the dates were wrong. But as the Intelligence Committee discovered, Wilson himself never saw the documents. He "misspoke" when he claimed to have seen something that he never saw.

Let's cut to the chase, cite the relevant portion of the report where the committee concludes that Wilson lied?

Why don't we really cut to the chase. This is about the 16 words in Bush's speech, right? Well, former CIA Director George Tenet admitted:

"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," he said.

This is called a dodge or red herring. The way it works is that when someone asks you a question you accuse the person of some error. It's also a personal attack in an attempt to poison the well.

Care to answer the question (I doubt you can)?

I pointed out that Clarke deliberately tried to mislead 60 Minutes and everybody watching that program into believing he was a Republican. You chose not to accept that, because you know that if Clarke was evasive (at best) on that question, it calls into question everything else he said. Let's stick with his Republican bona fides, shall we?

Look at the political donations Richard Clarke has made? Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, ActBlue, MoveOn.org, Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, etc.

Oh, he's that kind of Republican.

 

[BStrong]

I'd say that "mistake" is putting it mildly, but there were lots of folks (and imo even Saddam himself) that believed Iraq was hiding WMD's false info or otherwise.

To explain, I'm willing to bet that there were folks assigned by Saddam to come up WMD's and they knew what the penalty was for failure in Iraq under Saddam - "Sure boss, they're right here, see where it says Atom Bomb?"

My greatest fear at the time when the regime folded was that we'd end up with a concentration of troops in Baghdad and somebody would push that switch. I could see a dictator like Saddam doing it.

With what we know now, sure it looks like a giant poorly informed and planned cluster ****, but between bad information and half ass planning at the executive level we made about the best of it that we could.

 

[RandFan]

Correct when? When he told the CIA that the diplomats in Niger had confirmed contact with Iraqi officials? This was the important part of what Wilson discovered, despite the fact that he himself was too stupid to recognize it at the time.

Wilson became important and Plame was revealed as a CIA agent precisely because of the Washington Post article. He claimed in that article that he knew the documents may have been forged, because the names were wrong and the dates were wrong. But as the Intelligence Committee discovered, Wilson himself never saw the documents. He "misspoke" when he claimed to have seen something that he never saw.

Why don't we really cut to the chase. This is about the 16 words in Bush's speech, right? Well, former CIA Director George Tenet admitted:

I pointed out that Clarke deliberately tried to mislead 60 Minutes and everybody watching that program into believing he was a Republican. You chose not to accept that, because you know that if Clarke was evasive (at best) on that question, it calls into question everything else he said. Let's stick with his Republican bona fides, shall we?

Look at the political donations Richard Clarke has made? Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, ActBlue, MoveOn.org, Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, etc.

Oh, he's that kind of Republican.

OMG, you caught Clarke lying about being a Republican. Like I was (still registered). What in your world leads you to accept that being a Republican means never donating to liberal organizations?

• You ignore my questions.
• You ignore the fact that there never was an intent to acquire Yellow Cake.
• You ignore the fact that Clarke was correct.
• You ignore the fact that Wilson was correct.

Tell me who sounded alarms about Iraq? Tell me who ignored those Alarms? Tell me who all admitted their mistakes publicly?

Ex-Aide Recounts Terror Warnings

President Bush's top counterterrorism adviser warned seven days before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks that hundreds of people could die in a strike by the al Qaeda network and that the administration was not doing enough to combat the threat, the commission investigating the attacks disclosed yesterday.

Richard A. Clarke, who served as a senior White House counterterrorism official under three successive presidents, wrote to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sept. 4, 2001, urging "policymakers to imagine a day after a terrorist attack, with hundreds of Americans dead at home and abroad, and ask themselves what they could have done earlier," according to a summary of the letter included in a commission staff report. Clarke also cites the same plea in his new book.

Imagine Obama was warned of Benghazi. You and I both know he would likely have been impeached. Bush? We don't hold the GOP accountable for gross incompetence.