Study: False Statements Preceded War

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by solvs, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #1
    Study: Bush Admin Made 935 False Statements About Iraq Threat In March To War

    The ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous at best, there was also evidence that there were no WMDs beforehand that was pretty much completely ignored, and rather than take the time to find proof beforehand, even though Iraq posed no immediate threat, we made it an immediate threat and pulled resources out of where the real threat was to invade. Other dictators elsewhere who were even worse as well. I know the other excuses too, like the Dems in Congress also authorizing it. Except for the fact that they were also lied to and though no one is going to excuse their bandwagoning, they weren't the ones responsible, especially for the mess that was the occupation. So maybe someone can tell me why we really went there, and why we had to drop everything to go?

    And where that pesky Bin Laden guy is?
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  3. scotthayes macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    Only in America is it OK to lie about facts that lead to a war where hundreds of thousands of people are killed, but lying about getting a BJ nearly gets you kicked out of office :rolleyes:
     
  5. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Ummm.... the searchable database and the timeline assembly.
     
  7. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #7
    The day Bush was *cough* elected, SH's days were numbered. There was a known vocal group of conservatives (Kristol, Ailes, Krauthammer, Cheney, Perle, Leiberman, Rove, Card, Armitage, Hadley, Libby, and the list goes on) who were committed to regeim change in Iraq. They went so far as to jointly write a formal document to President to President Clinton, urging him to take military action. Although the President did not heed their advice, their goal did not diminish. With Bush in the WH and 9/11 on everyone's mind, the deal was sealed. The answer as to why is not easy to explain.

    It is not like we do not know many of the reasons, we do. And in that lies the problem; there is not one reason, or just a few. There are so many agendas for us being there. I will briefly touch on some of them.

    1) SH would not play ball with the US plan. He refused to be a colonial token head of state.

    2) Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. The world oil cartel needs to keep the major players 'in the community'. Otherwise, they cannot keep control on the supply, and a monopoly on the price. The Shah of Iran, or the Saudi royal family are exactly the types of leaders we want. Just leave the US to drill their oil and buy lots of fancy toys with the money we pay them. And, these rulers are every bit the despots as SH.

    3) Isreal - this is a big one. Isreal has wanted to establish a pro-Israel Arab State in the region, ever since Sadat was assassinated. Their choice was for the US to invade Iran. They met with the US Security Council several times to encourge this choice. However, Cheney was dialed into SH and Iraq. Much of the PR groundwork had already been laid. Maybe he had other motives as well. His Texas oil cronies may have seen more profit in Iraq?

    Oops - just noticed it is time to go home! Well that was a start anyway.
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    935 False statements from BushCo. We have 4,000 dead Americans and a Trillion dollar war for lies. Vote republican?:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:Dthats funny. It really is.
     
  9. solvs thread starter macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #9
    Ah yes, William "the Bloody" Kristol and his org, Project For a New American Century, or NAMBLA (sorry Jon).

    I went ahead and highlighted the important parts, but yeah, pretty much. They didn't even try to hide it very well. When we first invaded, we practically ignored the weapons reserves and guarded the oil fields. Oh, and, 9/11.


    Wondering why no one is even bothering to dispute this.
     
  10. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #10

    He's been banned.
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    The only thing I would dispute about this study is
    I don't think that Bush is smart enough to think of that. Our government probably had incorrect intelligence that they actually believed, and now that they know it was wrong, they are unable to admit they made a mistake.
     
  12. MikeTheC Guest

    MikeTheC

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Location:
    Gallifrey -- Capitol City, Prydonian Sector
    #12
    I don't think our country had incorrect or even necessarily inaccurate intel on Iraq. I think the true and correct facts were known. By somebody. Somewhere.

    And therein lies the problem: there is such a damn silo culture within the U.S. Government (as well as many larger private organizations -- Sony is a perfect example) it wouldn't surprise me to learn Bush, etc., actually did act in good faith, but the info they got was itself inaccurate, incomplete, or distorted. And whatever else anyone here wants to say against the man, you cannot in good conscience deny what I've just said.

    You see though, there's another problem. We all know pretty much what happened in, say the Korean War or in Vietnam, or even with Watergate. The truth actually came out, and it all happened in an era where journalists still believed in telling the truth, not in propping up some kind of agenda.

    But the media and members of the government and even us, the general public, are all so jaded, polarized, and agenda-seeking that I honestly doubt any history book will ever be written on this war that'll have the slightest shred of real credibility to it. That's sad, and I think it really, truly says something about the times and the culture we now live in.
     
  13. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #13
    I was more referring to what actually got to the president, I would agree that someone had the right intel, or more likely several people had portions of the right intel but were all parts of different government organizations so were unable to get together and figure out what actually was going on.
     
  14. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #14

    Swarmlord's been banned?
     
  15. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #15
    I dispute it! Wholeheartedly, vehemently, angrily! There is no way this could possibly true!!! By no means! No sir. No, you lie, sir. Do not come to me with this idle prate, this farce, this blasphemy, this scourge upon the very wholesome goodness that is the Republican Party and our Dear Leader.

    Oh wait. Sorry. I was practicing for a play. I have the role of someone completely deluded by rhetoric. My motivation is the fear of cognitive dissonance making my head explode.
     
  16. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #16
    Hah, you guessed who I was talking about! The defender of the indefensible. Yes, he's banned, apparently - don't know why, but I sense a marked improvement in the air quality these past few days.
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    The problem is that whatever intel your country had on Iraq - and it certainly wasn't enough to be sure of anything, cf. the almost complete dearth of Arabic speakers and/or people on the ground - the Administration, including Bush, was only interested in information, real or imaginary, checked or unchecked, which supported its "case" for war. To credit Bush and his cronies with "good faith" is an insult to people of good faith everywhere.
     
  18. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #18
    We had very good intel leading up to the invasion. But as you correctly stated, the administration was "cooking the intelligence books" to make their case. This is not opinion, for any of naysayers out there. Some journalists were getting the story right, especially the investigative reporters for Knight-Ridder. Joby Warrick of the WaPo also wrote articles which exposed holes in the administration's case. Bob Simons of 60 minutes, who spent years stationed in the mid-east (and especially Bagdad), also did a show on why the administration's case was dubious at best.

    But, Knight-Ridder did not have any outlets in WA DC, the WAPO and NYT stories, challenging the administration, ran on the back pages and were not picked up by the "mainstream" outlets. Even the 60 minutes piece had to be toned down before it was ready for prime time. As Norman Solomon said, "The winds of war were blowing at hurricane force and the heads of the media outlets just wanted to get out of the way. The story was out there, but few wanted to cross the administration, their pro-war corporate cronies (a very large, powerful group), or the right-wing slime machine.

    The sorry fact is, this has not gone away. It is alive and well and now focused on Iran and the 2008 election. Hopefully, enough Americans can recognize the strategy and tactics, so they will be able to identify it going forward.
     
  19. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #19
    Also, don't forget that the build up to the war occurred amidst of the mid-term election campaign. The main focus of that campaign was the war, and it allowed republicans to occupy the parliament, when the post-9/11 incompetence where already becoming obvious.
     
  20. solvs thread starter macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #20
    I'm gone for a couple of days and this is all you guys can come up with? I'm disappointed. :p I came her for an argument! ;)
     
  21. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #21


    my thoughts exactly
     

Share This Page