Iraq War a Mistake

16.5 said:
The question was whether Saddam had WMD's.

The data showed incontrovertibly that he had them and the will to use them.

Therefore, it is difficult for me to conclude that attempted genocide of the Kurds using a WMD is an obsolete data point.
Click to expand...
That only suggests that he was willing to use them, not that he still had them.
 
Brainster said:
Well, he either lied to the 9-11 Commission or Hardball. Or are you still gullible enough not to see that? Even NBC News recognizes the problem:

A departure; that's right up there with "misspoke" as a euphemism for lying.
Click to expand...
You have your gotcha. Something you can hang your hat on. As if no one he is testifying against never lied so we only need to focus on Clarke.

He's human. Did he lie, unlike you I can't read his minds. People make mistakes, misremember, etc., etc (something you know but cannot acknowledge and must use fallacy to rebut). And his Christ Mathews interview makes the point. Oddly you ignore the fact that he was honest enough to tell the truth to the commision and you want to use his honesty as a gotcha.

Not a single actor in this whole affair has the honesty of Clarke. Bush, Rice, Cheney, Powell, Rove, Rumsfeld, lied over and over and over and over.

Other than Powell none of them would come clean about their lies and obfuscation.

Define red herring? Look, Clarke said something that contradicts something else he said. BFD.
 
Last edited:
Therefore, it is difficult for me to conclude that attempted genocide of the Kurds using a WMD is an obsolete data point.
Click to expand...

Intel is "obsolete" and never a data point. Intel analysis is nothing like theorizing conspiritoidally - you don't get to stack half truths together to make one whole truth.

The "data point" is obsolete because actions by the US and UN superseded that data. Ignoring this fact is just cherry picking what "data" you think is useful.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Intel is "obsolete" and never a data point. Intel analysis is nothing like theorizing conspiritoidally - you don't get to stack half truths together to make one whole truth.

The "data point" is obsolete because actions by the US and UN superseded that data. Ignoring this fact is just cherry picking what "data" you think is useful.
Click to expand...

Difficult to imagine that one could consider The Halabja chemical attack "obsolete" "intell" that is capable of being "cherry picked."

That is like asking whether Al Qua-Ida is a threat and declaring that 9/11 is "obsolete" because actions by the US superseded that data.
 
I remember being leery of the WMD sell job at the time. But not for reasons talked about here. I very much wanted the Iraq War but also a host of other invasions. I knew that if WMD's were needed to get public approval of an invasion then how was I going to get the slew of other invasions I wanted? How would I get people to back invasions of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Chad, Libya, Sudan, what was then called Zaire, Uganda and Zimbabwe if they had no WMDs? That was the problem that troubled my mind at the time.

Of course that was all contingent on the Iraq invasion being a short, sweet success with a shining nice stable democracy left in its wake. That.....didn't happen. Which is why I now regret that it was done.
 
16.5 said:
Difficult to imagine that one could consider The Halabja chemical attack "obsolete" "intell" that is capable of being "cherry picked."

That is like asking whether Al Qua-Ida is a threat and declaring that 9/11 is "obsolete" because actions by the US superseded that data.
Click to expand...

Your knowledge and understanding of intelligence analysis is incomplete. The standard of quality of information takes into account reliability of source, confirm ability of the information and age of the information. Saddam gassing Kurds in '88 proved he had them at the time in '88 (no mystery) and was willing to use them in '88.

Those facts alone do not mean he still had them, and actions by US and UN during the entire 90s both worked to remove the weapons and prevent him from re-acquiring them. Intel analysis would take into account those facts and would seek more information.

The Cheney/Rumsfeld administration pulled the wool over your eyes. Embarrassing to admit being wrong, I know, but give it a try and see if it makes you a better person.
 
Wow! What an incredible response.

16.5 said:
The question was whether Saddam had WMD's.

The data showed incontrovertibly that he had them and the will to use them.
Click to expand...

Then show us the incontroverible data of yours. I have never seen it and I am sure that many other people would like to see it as well.

Therefore, it is difficult for me to conclude that attempted genocide of the Kurds using a WMD is an obsolete data point.
Click to expand...

So it took you 15 years to reach this point?

If so, then that does not say very much for your conclusions.

Case in point, we are quite near the point where the time between the present and the 9/11 terrorist attacks as the vote on the Iraq war resolution was from the Halabja chemical attack.
Click to expand...

I do not have any idea of what you are talking about here.

I don't right now consider the 9/11 attacks to be an obsolete data point.
Click to expand...

Well then, good for you.

But what do the 9/11 attacks have to do with the Iraq War?
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Your knowledge and understanding of intelligence analysis is incomplete. The standard of quality of information takes into account reliability of source, confirm ability of the information and age of the information. Saddam gassing Kurds in '88 proved he had them at the time in '88 (no mystery) and was willing to use them in '88.

Those facts alone do not mean he still had them, and actions by US and UN during the entire 90s both worked to remove the weapons and prevent him from re-acquiring them. Intel analysis would take into account those facts and would seek more information.
Click to expand...

I have pretty good understand of intelligence assessment. This was absolutely 100% reliable information, mitigated only its "age." You seem to believe that the intelligence that the "work" to remove the weapons was likewise 100% reliable, and I can assure you that anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge and understanding of intelligence analysis would not do so.

I am ignoring your baseless personalization of the argument. Don't do that again.
 
Last edited:
As a skeptic I often ask myself, am I just confirming my bias. It's always a possibility. I do watch MSNBC and Democracy Now and turn Fox on only to see what lie they are spouting now. I think Media Matters does a decent job of calling the right wing lies out. So confirmation bias is a legitimate concern.

Then I look at a thread like this one.

Most everything I concluded back when GW took office has borne out. What's in Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, has been backed up, not refuted, from Conde Rice's dismissal of the PDB and GW's deer-in-the-headlights look when he was told about the first WTC jet to now when the majority of the country is finally seeing what they didn't want to see for more than a decade.

But about this thread, the slivers of rationalization some people here are clinging to are a study in confirmation bias. Outdated Clinton intel supposedly trumps a wheelbarrow full of well documented fabrications that were touted as fact, Calling Saddam's gas attacks on the Kurds proof he not only had WMDs but somehow then it doesn't matter the lie pushed to get us to go along with Cheney's war was that Saddam had or would soon have nuclear weapons.

I look at the thread and reassure myself, my confirmation bias is well compensated for. It is indeed the other side that can't seem to do the same.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
I have pretty good understand of intelligence assessment.
Click to expand...

I'm sure your understanding is incomplete. Mine certainly is incomplete, and I have actual military experience with actual intel.

And if you feel any comment I make violates MA/TOS the Report button is the triangle symbol with an exclamation point inside
<------ over there.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
I have pretty good understand of intelligence assessment. This was absolutely 100% reliable information, mitigated only its "age." You seem to believe that the intelligence that the "work" to remove the weapons was likewise 100% reliable, and I can assure you that anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge and understanding of intelligence analysis would not do so.

I am ignoring your baseless personalization of the argument. Don't do that again.
Click to expand...

When I see a post like this, then I often perform my own "intelligence assessment".
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
... a study in confirmation bias. Outdated Clinton intel supposedly trumps a wheelbarrow full of well documented fabrications that were touted as fact, Calling Saddam's gas attacks on the Kurds proof he not only had WMDs but somehow then it doesn't matter the lie pushed to get us to go along with Cheney's war was that Saddam had or would soon have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that declaring that Clinton's intell that supported Operation Desert Fox "outdated" is an indication of confirmation bias.

"calling Saddam's gas attacks on the Kurds proof he not only had WMDs but somehow then it doesn't matter the lie pushed to get us to go along with Cheney's war was that Saddam had or would soon have nuclear weapons."

This does not appear to make sense, are you missing a word or two?

The remainder also appear to be a strawman.
 
16.5 said:
I have pretty good understand of intelligence assessment. This was absolutely 100% reliable information, mitigated only its "age." You seem to believe that the intelligence that the "work" to remove the weapons was likewise 100% reliable, and I can assure you that anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge and understanding of intelligence analysis would not do so.

I am ignoring your baseless personalization of the argument. Don't do that again.
Click to expand...

That Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds was not the justification for going to war after 9/11.

The justification for going to war after 9/11 was that Saddam had WMD's and was looking to use them against the USA and its allies or supply them to Al Qaeda to use against the USA or its allies.

That Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds is just as irrelevant to this thread as it was to the justification for invading Iraq. It's a distraction.
 
Last edited:
Biscuit said:
The justification for going to war after 9/11 was that Saddam had WMD's and was looking to use them against the USA and its allies or supply them to Al Qaeda to use against the USA or its allies....
Click to expand...

and as evidence of that had used WMD in the past to kill thousands of people.

The October 2002, U.S. congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
It seems to me that declaring that Clinton's intell that supported Operation Desert Fox "outdated" is an indication of confirmation bias.

"calling Saddam's gas attacks on the Kurds proof he not only had WMDs but somehow then it doesn't matter the lie pushed to get us to go along with Cheney's war was that Saddam had or would soon have nuclear weapons."

This does not appear to make sense, are you missing a word or two?

The remainder also appear to be a strawman.
Click to expand...
Tap dance tap dance, round and round
cling to anything
protect your mind
You bought a lie and to it you're bound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom