Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ugg, Mar 12, 2008.
What a surprise. I mean, that they've officially acknowledged it. Not the news that Saddam and Al-Qaeda never had any ties. They hated each other.
Still, that didn't stop the administration constantly insinuating a link between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein - belief of which was, unsurprisingly, closely correlated with support for the war.
they have acknowledged that there were no WMDs and now they say there was no connection.
what i want is for george bush to admit that it was a bad idea
More Censorship By the Bush Administration
From Crooks and Liars and ABC News:
For those of you who have been trying to sell the righteousness of this invasion/war, this is the 'smoking gun' which exposes all of the lies and propaganda ejaculated by this administration. Note: this is not authored by a 'liberal conspiracy'. It was commissioned by the American Military and is 'the official document'.
It was not a bad 'idea'. This information was 'known' in advance. This was a total deceit, sold to the American people, when they were emotionally vulnerable. The information contained in this report is sufficient for impeachment.
I fail to see how a decision based on shoddy intelligence is grounds for impeachment. A mistake, yes. Deliberate deception, I doubt it.
Amazing. Have you been hiding under a rock for the last 3+ years?
We knew about this a long time ago. Such a belated official announcement is an insult to our intelligence.
You do not get it, do you? The intelligence WAS there and available. The administration just flat-out ignored everything they did not like and lied about the rest. For heaven sake man, learn the facts before posting.
And in other news, the sky is blue, and yes, bears still do crap in the woods.
There's a fair amount of evidence that most incoming intelligence was willfully tailored to suit the wants of the administration, because the administration was dismissing anything -- and anyone -- that disagreed with their preconceived notion of what the facts were. In most cases I tend to agree with Hanlon's Razor, but I don't think this kind of incompetence can be explained without at least a little bit of recognition that the books were being cooked. I simply can not believe that the Bush administration was truly that niave.
That sounds clearly like deliberate deception to me. Is admitting that your commander-in-chief and the vice president have deliberately lied to you just too painful to bear? You should be angry or at least concerned, not supine.
Richard Clarke told them this on September 12th 2001 when dick and rummy were asking for them to find a link.
Everyone who continues to excuse the President as simply having "bad intelligence" are dupes, unfortunately. Go read "The Assault on Reason" and listen to attestations that a link be FOUND between Saddam and al-Quaida, over and over again by this administration... in spite of the truth. The intelligence was ON POINT. People didn't simply come back to Bush and say, "Saddam is funding al-Qaida", Bush actively sought a link, and specifically targeted Iraq even before 9/11. It's frustrating that in the name of reason, people are continuing to perpetrate irrational ignorance on the awful sordid truth. THIS is why Bush should be impeached.
HOW MANY TIMES does the truth need to be stated before people can finally believe the DEPTHS of the grave disservice this administration has done to our country?
For crying out loud, already. You "doubt it"? What evidence do you have for doubting it? Entire BI-PARTISAN commissions have been citing evidence FOR it for years now. Evidence to "doubt it" would be that you somehow saw credible evidence coming out of our intelligence gathering institutions. Everyone to-date has found this assertion disproven repeatedly, however unflattering it is to the administration.
Absolutely. One of the biggest achievements of the government's propaganda machine over this war (and many others) has been to almost ubiquitously limit criticism of the war to it merely being 'a mistake'; an act that, while well intentioned, has become too costly and messy due to uncontrollable circumstances.
Whether or not the war has been successful depends on how you judge it. If you judge it in terms like increased security, regional stability, likely reduction of WMD proliferation etc then yes, it has been a massive failure. If however you judge it from the point of view of securing control over the world's second largest oil reserves and establishing numerous military bases in the heart of the middle east with the whole affair being a corporate free-for-all pig-out on public coffers then yes, it's been a success and the objectives have been achieved.
And one massive added success has been managing (despite all the evidence to the contrary) to convince the population that it's all been in the name of freedom, liberty, democracy and justice. Plus, not only that but also to have the public that you're robbing blind actually leap to your defense should someone suggest otherwise - such is the level of their indoctrination and self-interested willingness to believe that they haven't in fact just been duped in supporting an immoral, murderous, cynical war for the sole sake of economic and political enrichment. To admit you've fallen for a lie is difficult and humiliating, and unfortunately on all available evidence, few people seem honest enough with themselves to be able to do so.
The war was and is not 'a mistake' it's a deliberate deception; an important and ongoing part of which is selling the 'mistake' excuse as the only acceptable criticism allowed in 'sensible' discourse. Deliberate deception? Don't be so anti-American and unpatriotic.
It wasn't shoddy intelligence, it was stovepiped intelligence. Big difference.
i think what he's getting at is that bush knew this stuff and took us to war anyway. what i want to see is bush try to defend the war now.
this makes me think bush let 9/11 go on purpose. i hate to say this but how could you get a memo saying "bin laden determined to attack inside US" and you just say "oh whatever"
impeachement and imprisonment would be nice.
Why did it take the CIA so bloody long to reveal such a blindingly obvious conclusion? Better late than never, I suppose.
When does the War Crimes trial begin?
Not that I am an apologist for the Iraq War, but I wonder about the following:
1. What if the real reasons for the Iraq War were/are justifiable, from a point of geopolitical or even domestic strategy, but were/are unsellable to the US public or even some politicians held sway by public opinion?
I realize this is obviously a slippery slope with regards to democratic fundamentals, and also gives the Administration no small amount of benefit-of-the-doubt. I also realize that considering many of the up-and-coming world powers are not encumbered by democratic processes behind political decisions, that this can put the US at a disadvantage comparatively.
2. Now that we are in the 5th year of the Iraq situation, how will this affect how we deal with the current situation at hand? Is the suppression of this information meant to obscure culpablilty, or is it to limit the effect of public opinion on the options of how we proceed with Iraq from this point forward?
If it is the latter, is there not some pragmatism to this? After all, the complexity of the situation we are in should leave as many options on the table for solutions as possible - and not necessarily be tied into a referendum and moral debate on how we got into this mess, right?
It seems obvious 5 years in that the Iraq War was a mistake, from at least a prosecution standpoint, if not in totality. Nevertheless, I take the mess that has been created as a responsibility of the US to manage, regardless of ultimate culpability. An ultimately irresponsible solution tied to domestic political motives and a moral highground from an unaccountable media, would, imo, just exarcerbate the problem.
It is worth remembering that the Tet Offensive was an overwhelming tactical and militarily strategic victory in Vietman, yet proved to be a huge PR victory for the North Vietnamese - as despite our miltary victorys, the tide of public opinion turned against the war, and robbed the US of crucial military options that might have created a different outcome in the following years.
I hope my inclusion of the above paragraph is recognized as merely an illustration of the forces at work here...
As you later imply, reasoning this byzantine has no place in a democratic system. If you accept this, you accept anything.
The world is much better off without that terrorist in power.
Iraq sure as hell isn't better off.
eh. Bush is still in power until January 20, 2009.
Jeez, I thought George W was still in the White House. Has he left already?
come on dudes....