9/11 Report

[barfle]

Whether or not "the government" felt there was a threat from Iraq or not will have to wait for history to decide. Personally, I see the following facts:

Bush the elder fought Saddam Hussein at the request of Kuwait, who had been invaded, and crippled his regime.

UN Weapons inspectors got the run-around, were kicked out, then came back with total cooperation for a few weeks, and found no evidence of WsMD.

Bush the younger declared a connection between Saddam Hussein and al qaeda, and that Saddam Hussein had WsMD, told the inspectors to leave, and invaded, in spite of the opinions of nearly all of the other governments in the world, and in spite of the countries bordering Iraq telling Bush the younger that they felt no threat from Iraq.

Did I believe after 9/11 that Iraq had any connection to al qaeda or that they were in any condition to use WMD against the US? Not for a moment. Check my old posts.

[mmichaelson]

All good points. I for one don't know about any connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein, and I doubt we will ever know the entire truth.

Whether or not Iraq was in any condition to use WMD against I do not know either. It seems like other countries are coming forward (Russia) and saying that they gave our intelligence "credible" information regarding Iraq and their intentions to attack US and US interests soon. (I really wish I had the link to this article).

I do not neccessarily agree with our invasion of Iraq (especially against world opinions and aid), but I do not think that we should just sit idly by and wait for people to attack us. Perhaps at the time of the attacks (and we'll never know) the administration felt like it had credible evidence. Due to whatever factors. . .(inept CIA/FBI info, etc) I don't think that oil greed was the single reason behind our invasion. Maybe a factor, but not the single reason.

I think that things need to be investigated within our own agencies for the discrepancies that we are now discovering, but I do not believe for one instant that one person/agency is to blame for the invasion/false information. If anything, it is a conglomerate, which is why I feel an investigation needs to occur.

[RC]

barfle:

I've noted several times that I feel our presence in Iraq is shameful, but I can't put the genie back in the bottle. We're there, for better or worse.

However, the actions of the Philippine government, withdrawing their token force to appease some vile kidnappers, has sent the kidnap rate soaring. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision, but it was not a good one.

I couldn't agree more with those two statements in particular.

[Nicole Marie]

Saxy I do not believe Iraq was in any position to attack the US. It's a nice spin Bush did with the Axil of Evil deal. He was putting fear in us and trying to make us think Iraq was connected with Al Q and moments away from attaking the US. (And the Russian evidence was quickly discredited by several agencies.) Bin Laden went to Iraq and met with Saddam (I believe it was about 10 years ago), Saddam did not like him or his ideas and asked him to leave. They had no connection with each other.

We do know that Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family are very well connected. The Saudi government has interests in several of the charity organizations that supported Al Q. 15 of the hijackers were Saudis'. The Saudi government refused to assist the US in its investigation. The only way they have helped is in tracking down groups in their country that are involved in the kidnappings in Iraq.

There are so many more connections with Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden then Iraq and Saddam. But we'll never invade that country, they give us way to much oil and the Bush family has business investments with the Saudi family. (Not to mention the Bin Laden family.)

I agree Sadam had to go. But if we ask our men and women to put thier lives on the line, it better be a good reason and the right country. Over 1000 of our troops have died. That's to high of a number based on a lie. My dad will be there in October. It ticks me off that he's going there, to clean up a mess in a country that had nothing to do with Sept 11. Bin Laden is in the Afganistan area. We only have about 11,000 troops looking for him there. We have over 100,000 in Iraq. We know where the guy that caused Sept 11th is but we are not putting a real effort into finding him. Instead we are trying to clean up the mess of Iraq that we caused.

Bush has the power to do something, to find Bin Laden. But instead he is focusing on the wrong area. Another mistake of his, just like ticking off our friends world wide. He's made to many mistakes. One or two I can live with but when his mistakes are major and cost peoples lives... well I just can't support him.

We should also look at North Korea and Iran. It's just been reported that they are working together on nuclear weapons. Now that is a real threat.

[Shapley]

Nicole and Barfle,

Both the 9/11 commission and the British Report stopped short of saying that there was no connection between Al Queda and Iraq, only that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. President Bush did not lie, and both of the reports support him. He did not pressure the CIA to backup his theories, as was claimed before the report.

In short, based on both reports, Both President Bush and Tony Blair made the best decision based on the evidence at hand. I still think it was a sound decision. The discredited "yellowcake connection" was re-credited by the reports, as well.

As for "World" opinion being against the Invasion, that depends on who you regard as comprising the "world". Clearly Britain was with us, as was Spain, the Phillipines, Japan, and various other members of the coalition, which Al Queda now seeks to dismantle one nation at a time. France, Germany, and Russia were the most vocal opponents. Given Chirac's rantings of late, France will oppose any effort to fight terrorism, they having settled for a course of appeasement years ago. "Rantings" is not my word, BTW, it is being used by various magazines and daily's with reference to his recent actions at the NATO conference.

V/R
Shapley

[Nicole Marie]

That's the point Shapely. We went in there based on a lie. There was no connection with 9/11 and Iraq. We sent our folks there to fight a war and die based on Bush playing up the fear of 9/11 and saying they were a threat.

Sending people to war is serious and you better have damn good reasons before you invade a country. I think the reasons we were given were not good enough.

[Shapley]

President Bush did not say that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq. He said they were a threat. Based on available intelligence, they were. Many, including myself, still believe them to have been. Not an imminent threat, but President Bush did not call Iraq an imminent threat, nor would an imminent threat have required Congress' approval for the invasion. He outlined to the U.S. and to the U.N. the terms under which, by the U.N.'s own resolutions, the attack should have occured, those terms were met. Failure to act weakened our position, and would have showed the world that we were weak-kneed in the face of danger. We had, for eight years, turned the other cheek when Iraq ignored the mandates imposed upon it, while Saddam enriched himself with the corrupt "food for oil" program, sent the weapons inspectors packing, and routinely ignored the "no fly zone" restrictions. President Clinton talked boldly about the need for regime change in Iraq, but left it to his successor to implement it. If we were to have credibility in the world, we really had no choice.

I know it's popular to say that President Bush lied, but the simple fact is he didn't.

V/R
Shapley

[mmichaelson]

I agree with Shap. I wish we had more back-up and support for our reasoning, but we have what we have.

YRH, I sympathize with you. .. I too have family in Iraq and I am terrified every day that we will received bad word, but I have to hope that we are over there trying to do the right thing. If you can't have hope, you have nothing left.
(I'll send prayers up for your dad along with my own.)

I know it's naive, but I will always be a "Pollyanna" and try and hope that we sincerely are over there trying to help these people and to protect our own country at the same time.

[Nicole Marie]

Shapely, I understand what you are saying. But I do not believe Iraq was a threat to us. We had US troops there already keeping an eye on Saddam, we patrolled the no fly zones, we had him surrounded. The real threat was Bin Laden. Bush DID play up the fear of threat, of 9/11 and Iraq. He may not have come right out and said there was a connection but he gave the public the implication. And if that is not lieing... well it sure as hell is misleading. It's shady and wrong and I expect honesty from the person who runs my country and sends people off to die.

Oh and I DO NOT believe it is our responsibility to keep the world in line. We were not week kneed we were mislead.

<small>[ 07-27-2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Nicole Marie ]</small>

[mmichaelson]

Nicole, I hear what you are saying. . .

I don't think it is our responsibility to keep the world in line either. . .but it is hard to reconcile keeping our noses out of everyone's business to the isolationism felt after WWII and Vietnam. As a student of history, I can see the terrible consequences of us keeping to ourselves. . .but I can also see the repercussions of assuming that everyone (Iraq, North Korea, etc) is out to get us. It is hard to walk the balancing line between the two.

I think that so far (ugh, I can't believe I'm saying this) Clinton has done the best job in recent years of walking this fine line. . .and although neither him nor Bush was able to foresee 9/11 (after all, who could have?) I think more could have been done to alleviate our weaknesses to terrorism.

I don't think we will ever know if the administration lied to us, misled us, or seriously thought they saw veiled threats. . .but I still hold out that my cousins are fighting for a reason. . .

I'm going to bubble on over to the Reading post now. . .read any good books lately? If you ahve. . .join me for some more light-hearted discussion!

[Nicole Marie]

Hi Saxy, I am not calling for isolationism. I too think that is a bad idea. But I do not believe we have the ability or money or people to solve every single issue. If we are going to put effort into bringing down a Saddam like leader, then why don't we focus on Iran or North Korea who we know have WMD's and do have the drive to use them against us.

[lliam]

quote:
Well, I've said this before: I think that our government truly felt like there was a credible threat in Iraq (not just greed for oil). The Russian government has stated in the past month that they passed on intelligence to our country that stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that the was going to target the US in the future. Britain (whether real or imaginary) has also stated that they found intelligence to this effect (although you'd have to chat with Lliam about that moreso than me).
================================================

If a new world is to come, we must first create it in ourselves. You may ask how the work of a few people can change the world. It has always been so. Ideas are powerful, not organizations. Nothing can be done by outward force; everything can be done by inner strength.

It is my humble opinion that we are living at the most dangerous time in the whole history of mankind, at least for the past 26,000 years. How we respond to the forces currently manifesting in the atmosphere of our planet will determine what happens to us, whether we move boldly onwards into a 'New Age' of enlightenment or retreat back into a 'Dark Age' of unimaginable bestiality. I believe that the choice lies within us all. That is down to us individually and as nations to turn this energy of tension to our own self-development, to use it as a spur for growth. That way we will make it through the transition.


BTW
Periodic cycles of human madness characterized by systematic destruction of all that has been built up, and caused by electromagnetic tensions between the masses of the planets and sun? Who knows? The recent rare twin events of the close approach of Mars, planet of war, and the transit of Venus, planet of love, and the incredible increase in solar activity, give one pause to think that perhaps we are indeed in a time of unusual planetary tensions. If this is so, the thing to remember is that this is then also a time when rapid spiritual progress is possible if one keeps one's wits and concentrates one's efforts and consciousness along the spiritual line.

[mmichaelson]

I am in complete agreement there!!!

[barfle]

Wow, I go to a class and all of a sudden, I'm about 15 posts behind!

First, Saxy, I don't recall the Russians giving us intelligence saying Iraq had WMD. I'm not calling anyone dishonest at this point, but it's news to me, and I did try to keep up. Especially since I had such a strong opinion against the actions we took. I remember the administration telling us a lot of things about Iraq that not only did I not believe at the time, but have proven to be either total fabrications or extreme distortions of the truth.

Second, YRH, although Saddam was a vicious SOB, it wasn't up to us to do anything about it, unless he presented a threat to the US or its allies. As you noted, we were patrolling Iraq for ten years, so if he was building WMD under our noses, well, shame on us. But he wasn't, so shame on us for invading.

Third, Shapley, although I admit to not having had a chance to read the 9/11 report, I have heard that they deliberately stopped short of saying anything about Iraq. And even by your report, if the US invasion of Iraq was part of our response to 9/11, it was in error.

Fourth, YRH, not only is sending people to war serious, STARTING a war is one of the most heinous acts of barbarism I can think of. Iraq did not invade us, they did not invade any other country since they were thrown out of Kuwait and had their military decimated. They were weak, the administration didn't like them, they had oil, and they were, well, convenient. What I'm saying here is, "yeah, but doubled."

Shapley, as far as the US Congress is concerned, simply for deciding not to decide about the invasion (authorizing the Executive branch to act without their declaration), they have indicated their cowardice and any member who voted in favor of the resolution deserves to be tossed out on his or her butt. The Constitution clearly states that it's Congress's duty to declare war when it becomes necessary, and they have abdicated that duty. Since they are our employees, we should fire them for dereliction, disobedience, and violation of company policy.

And to Saxy, yup, the genie is out, and now what do we do? With the current spate of kidnappings and beheadings, it's clear our presence is not exactly meeting with enthusiasm. I don't want to sound like an appeaser, particularly since I issued such a condemnation against the Philippines earlier today, but I only see two possibilities: withdrawal before we cause any more innocent deaths, or kill off the whole lot of them. I would be as bad a monster as any of them if I felt the latter were worthy of any support. We're not going to force them to be a free and open society. Iraq won't be the 51st star on the flag. Any positive thing we leave behind will be considered a puppet of imperialists and overthrown, unless it is as brutal a regime as the one we overthrew.

I don't feel we should be isolationsts, either. We are a very strong and rich country, with a lot to offer the world. But what we should offer is leadership by example and free trade. Our generally free society is one of the most prosperous in the world, if not THE most prosperous. We got that way by allowing the working man to keep a few bucks and spend it on goods made by other working men, and not regulating and taxing the employers to death. The idea of liberty as a way of life can be an example for the rest of the world to follow. It's their decision whether to accept such leadership or not.

Lliam, I agree that the way to change organizations is to change the people in them. I find remarkably little support for liberty - I don't believe I heard the word uttered once last night during the DNC convention speeches. This doesn't exactly surprise me, as legislators (aka "career politicians") tend to believe it's their duty to write and pass new laws. And unfortunately, we've grown extremely complacent about our liberties here. I am regularly appalled by those who feel the intrusions into their lives ostensibly to track down terrorists is justified by the supposed security such intrusions are said to provide. I'm not ready to move to Canada yet, but I wonder how much nibbling away at our freedom it will take before the Constitution is simply an old piece of faded vellum.

[Nicole Marie]

Barfle, I'm in complete agreement.

[Serenity]

The DNC should go international. Next convention: Bagdad. Who would be our biggest supporters?

[haggis]

"First, Saxy, I don't recall the Russians giving us intelligence saying Iraq had WMD. I'm not calling anyone dishonest at this point, but it's news to me, and I did try to keep up. Especially since I had such a strong opinion against the actions we took. I remember the administration telling us a lot of things about Iraq that not only did I not believe at the time, but have proven to be either total fabrications or extreme distortions of the truth."

Russian Intelligence I can't confirm the accuracy of the information, but this is what Saxy referred to.

Barf, if President Bush believed and said there were (and still are) WMDs that certainly wasn’t any groundbreaking news.

Every president and major cabinet and congressional leader since President Carter believed and said the same thing as president Bush, you can blame the intelligence agencies going back a long time, but President Bush just continued in the same meme that’s been around a long time. I've listed a few below; if you want more I have another 10 - 15.

If President Bush was wrong about the WMDs present in Iraq (not a point I'm willing to concede yet, it's a big country) then it certainly wasn't because he all of a sudden decided to claim something that wasn't believed by all his predecessors and other world leaders.

I don't know what other "distortions" you are referring to but would love to hear them.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY)Oct 10, 2002

[shostakovich]

I've been reading this thread with special interest because I have promised to write up reasons in August not to vote for Bush. Regarding the Iraq war, most of my points have already been made, primarily by Barfle.

But repitition is not a bad thing. So next week I'll put up some of my own reasons why Bush has done almost everything wrong (i.e., not the way I would like to have seen him act). The Iraq war is obviously the most emotional issue, but there are others.
Shos

[Serenity]

Nice touch Haggis, quoting all the big-time democrats regurgitating Hussein had WMDs when now they're chastising "Bumblehead" about it.

Shos, you could list your points in August and then let arguments develop in the thread.

[The Great Carouser]

So let me see if I've got this straight, all these Democrats believed Saddam had WMDs but only Bush went in half-cocked. I suppose that was the Democrats' fault too? Just a poor bunch of Republican working stiffs fooled by that evil, liberal,left-wing, 'POS'(a favorite 'witticism' from the 'brain(s)' behind that jingoist Massachusetts blog Haggis linked us to the other day)Democratic conspiracy into attacking Iraq? What is one to think of leaders who are so easily hoodwinked?