9/11 Panel Said to Have Avoided Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Jul 25, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    um, like the war in iraq? biggest cop out i've seen since the government shut down in the mid-90's. the republicans know they would been screwed if they had talked about it.

    from yahoo
     
  2. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #2
    Perhaps their silence is more telling than any reference.

    Logical conclusion:

    If Iraq had any bearing on 9-11 they would have mentioned it. Therefore Iraq must not have been relevant to 9-11.

    The commission was to analyze the breakdowns leading to, and the structure of the organizations that orchestrated the 9-11 attack. Their mandate was NOT to critique dubyaw's performance so far in his "War on Terrorism".

    The interesting thing for me is that the Bush Administration made so many inferences that Iraq had some connection to 9-11 that there's actually some significant complaint that the Comission "missed" the "Iraqi Connection".

    Just serves to show how easily misled and unwilling to think critically Americans really are. Sad. Dangerous. Ominous.
     
  3. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #3
    The quote reads: "9/11 and the events that immediately flow from that." If it said 9/11 and the events that lead up to it, you may have had a point. As it is,
    actually makes my case for me.
     
  4. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #4
    That's right. Seems to me they can't have it both ways. Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell crapped on endlessly about the links between the two, sos much so that (as I last heard) that they had fooled/confused 50% of US citizens into thinking that Iraq was partly responsible for 9/11, and used that "support" to enable the invasion.

    These two are simply indivisible, and they were made that way by Bush himself - to now clinicaly separate them when it suits the purpose in hand is disingenuous to say the least.
     
  5. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #5
    Erm.... Not quite. 9-11 never had anything to do with Iraq. Iraq never had anything to do with 9-11. The events that flowed immediately from 9-11 do not include in any analytical discourse, the inferrences made by Bush.

    I suppose you could argue that the war in Iraq flowed from 911. There's one important stipulation missing: The war wasn't an immediate consequence... it was a (how-many-degrees-of-seperation?) tenuous and inferred consequence. It did not occur as a direct consequence of the investigations and intelligence gathering following 911. You may as well ask why Kevin Bacon wasn't mentioned.
     
  6. Thanatoast thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #6
    Some of us have known (or suspected) this from the beginning. However, Bush tried to draw a straight line from 9-11 to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We were led to war partly on the basis of his alleged ties to al-Qeada and connection to 9-11. Therefore, the Iraq war flowed from those events.

    I guess a different way to phrase it would be, if 9-11 hadn't happened, would Iraq have been invaded? If not, then there is a causal relationship.
     
  7. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #7

    It is my belief that Bush would have found an excuse, potentially the same excuse (Secret WMD's). War, specifically RISK style war was unavoidable with this administration. Dubyaw seems to use the same sort of scary Manifest Destiny approach that was present in Nixon, Theodore Roosevelt, and to a lesser extent Reagan.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Isn't it an occupational hazard of the job? Anyone who reaches that position WITHOUT trying to change the world is a real waste of space. Does the opportunity get any better? We all NEED someone with real vision in the WH.
     
  9. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #9
    The Vatican had a vision too when it decided to begin a centuries-long Genocide against non-Catholics in Europe.

    Certain groups in Africa have had clear visions recently of pure ethnicity.

    OBL and his Ilk have a clear vision of a Jihad that will wipe Western Civilization from the world and leave us all in beards and bourkas.

    You should reach that position through a genuine LOYALTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    The position of President of The United States of America does not bear the mandate of reshaping the world in some arbitrary fashion. It bears the mandate of Serving the Poeple of the United States of America, Upholding the Constitution and Protecting the Rights and Principals in that document as written for that people.

    The SECONDARY mandate of that position is to work through diplomacy to serve the best long term interests of the American People and the American Economy.

    The TIRTIARY duty is as Commander and Chief of the US Millitary in providing National and International context when deployment of said Millitary is neccesary.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Yes, unfortunately some visionariess are less desirable than others. :(
     
  11. Colirio macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Zion in the tops of the mountains...
    #11
    President Bush has never mentioned that there was any connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein.

    The only connection that the President has claimed is between Saddam and Al Quaeda, NOT Saddam to September 11th. See the difference? If you have reliable information to the contrary I would really like to hear/read it.


    The War in Iraq has most certainly changed as a result of September 11th. I say "changed" rather initiated because we have been dropping bombs on Iraq and shooting at each other over there since the first Gulf War. (Even President Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Iraq by mistake due to faulty intelligence.) The war with Iraq hasn't stopped since the first Gulf War. Saddam had agreed to provide EVIDENCE of getting rid of the WMD he possessed as part of his peace agreement with the UN. He never did, so, the US along with the UN has been passing resolutions and threats and dropping bombs and exchanging fire for the last 12 years as a result.

    President Bush ordering an official military campaign to oust Saddam is what changed as result of September 11th when our security policies in this country changed due to those events.
     
  12. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    speaking of faulty intelligence...
     
  13. Colirio macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Zion in the tops of the mountains...
    #13
    Yeah, I never quite understood why President Bush didn't change out those guys when they had obviously goofed so many times before with the previous administration. Looks like that decision is coming back to haunt him...
     
  14. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #14
    Colirio, although I believe you are technically correct in your first statement (as I have not been able to peruse all of the Administration's statements), Bush hasimplied a connection between the two, by the constant reference to 9/11 when speaking about Iraq, especially in 2003 in the period leading up to and beginning the War in Iraq.

    At the time, polls showed that almost 70% of the US public believed that Saddam/Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attack and a sizeable minority beleived some of the highjackers were Iraqi.

    There is a relationship between my two paragraphs, I believe...
     
  15. Colirio macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Zion in the tops of the mountains...
    #15
    Well, I tend to think that the news media itself was probably responsible for those misconceptions more than the administration was.

    As I pointed out, there was a need to keep bringing up the issue of September 11th when going to war with Iraq because it was due to September 11th's policy changes that caused us to finally make the decision to oust the regime in Iraq. Had September 11th not happened, my personal guess is that things would have gone differently with the war in Iraq. (Nobody can do anything but speculate of course.)

    President Clinton had showed a resolve in wanting to push the issue of Saddam in more of a diplomatic way. (Even against the urging of many senatros INCLUDING John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and others.) President Bush also showed this same resolve when he entered office to resolve this in a diplomatic way. But, after September 11th happened, he couldn't afford to take that chance anymore. Imagine if the US intelligence, British Intelligence, and UN intelligence had been CORRECT! :eek: President Bush had no reason to doubt its validity at that point in time and neither did Congress who also voted to go to war with Iraq. Can you imagine the repurcussions if the intelligence had been correct and President Bush hadn't acted on it?
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    you're in need of some facts about how the bush administration came up w/ its intelligence. seymour hersh wrote about it, one such column can be found here.
     
  17. Colirio macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Zion in the tops of the mountains...
    #17
    Well, one of the FACTS is that our intelligence committee found the same things that British intelligence had found. So, even IF the Bush administration had skewed the intelligence, the fact that British intelligence was reporting the same thing would have led President Bush to believe he was still in the right.

    The truth is that none of us know whether or not the Bush administration pushed for intelligence to be reported a certain way. It has been one person's word against another person's word. But, one FACT is that the 9/11 Commission found that the Bush administration did NOT push for intelligence in that arena, so, why would you automatically assume that he did in this one? His past record shows differently.

    Is it possible that President Bush pushed the intelligence officials to report their findings a certain way? Yes. Is it possible that he didn't? Yes. So, all we can really look to for a decision is his past records. Since the 9/11 Commission reported that he did not, there is no reason to assume he did until proven guilty.
     
  18. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #18
    colirio,
    As there may never be any "clear-cut" facts about the events leading up to the war (motives, intelligence-gathering information, duplicity) or an abject refusal for some to accept compelling, yet not ultimately definitive information pointing towards a certain conclusion.

    Personally, As I have formed a judgement about the "character" of the current Administration, pieced together slowly from a variety of news stories, leaks, discussions of events from those in a position to know, and the actions/reactions of this Administration to certain challenges, I have come to believe that their motives were not entirely on the up-and-up.

    I cannot prove this, of course, as the Administration left no "smoking-gun". It is an article of "faith", as are many opinions in Politics. This, along with the fact that I feel the Administration in power should admit and accept mistakes made under it's watch (even if not entirely their fault), as a characteristic of leadership, means I will be voting for Kerry in Nov.
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    so you'd rather jump on one word i wrote -- facts -- than read the article and actually get more information into your head. nice.
     
  20. Colirio macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Zion in the tops of the mountains...
    #20
    Well, that is certainly your right to believe that way! :D

    My purpose in discussing this wasn't to change yours or anyone else's opinion on the matter, it's simply to show the other side of the coin. I think that many things are blamed on this administration that are simply not factual. That doesn't mean that they are innocent as the blue sky and that they haven't made mistakes. I don't even agree with all of their policies and I am obviously very conservative.

    The main point that I was trying to make is that I DO feel that the administration was honestly doing what they felt was best in these scenarios. Nor do I feel that a proper case has been made to the contrary. You obviously do and I think it's great that you want what is best for your country. :)


    EDIT: Whoa Zim! Why are you attacking me and getting upset? How do you know that I haven't read your article? It had many interesting things in it but I also found many things that I simply didn't feel are true. There are just as many articles that I could post that say the contrary.

    But honestly man, I really have no interest in debating points with you if you would rather just attack each other and make assumptions about each other. I prefer to discuss rather than attack and I would more than happily discuss things with you in the future if you would agree to that as well. :)
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    Fact check: Sudan

    How many US troops were committed to this mistake? How much money?
    How much grief did Clinton get from the Republicans for it?

    So Clinton was an ******* because he bombed a phamaceutical plant due to ****ty intel, but Bush is totally justified to commit our entire military and billions of dollars to Iraq based on even ****tier intel?
    Gotta love the double standards and lack of perspective the GOP can have.

    You're right about Bush never coming out and saying Iraq and 9/11 were directly related. But he and his staff made a deliberate and careful effort to word their statements in such a way that a large percentage of Americans believed that they were. People believed Bush was an honest man and they took him at his word.

    Now we've learn that he's only honest enough to never have to own up to his deceptions, because he never technically lied. It stinks much worse than the whole "definition of is is" thing that had the GOP drooling.
     
  22. Colirio macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Zion in the tops of the mountains...
    #22
    Again, gentlemen, can't we remain civil in our discussions here, please? :)

    I wasn't attacking President Clinton for his mistake nor have I insinuated that President Bush is squeaky clean in this matter.

    I simply used that example in the context of making a point that the war has been going on for many years, not in an attack against President Clinton. I believe that you should reread my post in its entirety and you would understand.
     
  23. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #23
    If they even think you have attacked one of their Gods, repercussion quickly follows... I'm learning this quickly. However, Republicans are fair game, hehehe ;)
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    so mr hersh is wrong? please point out where. and keep in mind this is the same man who uncovered the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib abuses.
     
  25. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #25
    I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the RNC and the GOP spin machine whose effects seemed to be surfacing in your post. Sorry if I came off as directing my statement at you.
     

Share This Page