|
Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
wrong. the motives were explicitely laid out at Bush's speech to the UN in 2002 and 2003. the text is there and there is no need to cherry pick. |
I've spent far too much time with that idiot LatinLover tonight to find the references you're talking about. If you have them, could you post them especially the parts that specifically state he was going in for regime change at the getgo?
| quote: | | these ideals were predicated and reinforced by Clinton's urging of Congress, and ultimately passed bi-partisanedly, in Public Law 105-338 the Iraqi Liberation Act 1998. |
Indeed.
So it's Clinton's fault again.
Oh wait, I'm sorry, who invaded again in 2003?
Who decided to take their eye off bin Laden, hand that job over to corrupt Afghan warlords, trump up intelligence that was highly dubious and questionable based on a lying piece of exile and his group (and lying source Curveball), make connections to al Qaeda involvement, cherry-pick intelligence that supported their cause while discarding that which did not, all to go to war again?
Did Clinton do that? Did he decide full invasion was best?
Or did he believe containment was working to a large extent, just like someone's else's father did?
Did Clinton examine all the evidence laid out on the table, then decide that it would be best to fully invade while disregarding the true enemy that actually attacked us on 9/11?
Oh wait, that's right. Gosh, that wasn't Clinton, was it?
| quote: | | i'm not gonna hi-jack this thread anymore with Clinton's convincing of Congress to go into the Eastern Bloc or lob cruise missiles at other countries. there's plenty to debate there in another thread. |
Debate to which we've covered at great lengths in the past. I agree.
| quote: | | my fundamental question to you remains. what do you believe the "real" motives are if you are so quick to rebuff our efforts in the Middle East at the expence of ignoring what Democrat leaders have said years before Jan 2001? |
Again I believe we've covered this ground quite a bit, Q., have we not?
What Dems. have said prior to invasion is what they will have to answer for themselves. But perhaps you can help explain why the NIE "White Paper" had been given such scrutiny Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report which concluded the White Paper "misrepresented" to the public the intelligence community judgements, as well as:
| quote: | Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community's elimination of the caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments.
...
Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions in the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included in the unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded completely. In both cases in which there were dissenting opinions, the dissenting agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject matter experts on the issues in question. Excluding the names of the agencies provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the Intelligence Community regarding these issues.
...
Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002 White Paper on Iraq's potential to deliver biological agents conveyed a level of threat to the United States homeland inconsistent with the classified National Intelligence Estimate.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intel...chapter10-c.htm |
Now I'm sure you know this story. The NIE was requested by SSCI, which usually takes months to assemble
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAE...-nie.pdf#page=2
but the CIA compiled it in a matter of weeks instead, and gave it to Congress a few days right before they voted on the resolution. Of course we shouldn't listen to my Senator Roberts (R-KS) who conceded that if the intelligence was provided to Congress prior to the vote was accurate, "I doubt if the votes would have been there."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5409538/
The NIE had inherent flaws in it, to which the SSCI and other intelligence committees and agencies have conceded. The caveats and dissenting views in that NIE, however, were CLASSIFIED and those eyes who did see it could not state publicly what was going on. As Senator Durbin stated in Dead Wrong:
| quote: | DURBIN: I walked out of those [October 2002 Senate Intelligence Committee] hearings [on the NIE] having heard something that was truthful and accurate and picked up the newspaper and saw someone from the White House or administration has just said the opposite, or they've said it much differently. I am bound by law not to go to the press and say, something's wrong here. I can't do it.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...8/21/cp.01.html |
They weren't given that document with those requested caveats until it was too late. As the WaPost reported in June of 2003:
| quote: | Questions about the reliability of the intelligence that Bush cited in his Cincinnati address were raised shortly after the speech by ranking Democrats on the Senate intelligence and armed services panel. They pressed the CIA to declassify more of the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate than a 28-page "white paper" on Iraq distributed on Capitol Hill on Oct. 4.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer |
5 out of 9 Dems. voted against the war resolution - they saw the classified version and voted with their conscience secondary to a lack of firm evidence. The remaining 4 and the rest of the Democrats who took the NIE at face value will have to answer for themselves - I give no excuses to them.
As for prior to 9/11 and during the Clinton years, again one has to wonder why you continue to try and push their arguments made when all the intelligence was clearly not pushed out onto the table in efforts to bolster a case for war. Had they seen such evidence in a case for war and regime change, and if they continued to support their "yea" vote for invasion at that point, then they would hear the same criticism from me regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.
It's one of the biggest reasons why I criticize Hillary, as you well know.
Again, we've been down this road. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So it's Clinton's fault again. |
NO!!!!! how can i fault Clinton on the merits of the Iraqi Liberation Act if i support regime change?
| quote: | What Dems. have said prior to invasion is what they will have to answer for themselves. But perhaps you can help explain why the NIE "White Paper" had been given such scrutiny Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report which concluded the White Paper "misrepresented" to the public the intelligence community judgements, as well as:
Now I'm sure you know this story. The NIE was requested by SSCI, which usually takes months to assemble
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAE...-nie.pdf#page=2
but the CIA compiled it in a matter of weeks instead, and gave it to Congress a few days right before they voted on the resolution. Of course we shouldn't listen to my Senator Roberts (R-KS) who conceded that if the intelligence was provided to Congress prior to the vote was accurate, "I doubt if the votes would have been there."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5409538/
The NIE had inherent flaws in it, to which the SSCI and other intelligence committees and agencies have conceded. The caveats and dissenting views in that NIE, however, were CLASSIFIED and those eyes who did see it could not state publicly what was going on. As Senator Durbin stated in Dead Wrong:
They weren't given that document with those requested caveats until it was too late. As the WaPost reported in June of 2003:
5 out of 9 Dems. voted against the war resolution - they saw the classified version and voted with their conscience secondary to a lack of firm evidence. The remaining 4 and the rest of the Democrats who took the NIE at face value will have to answer for themselves - I give no excuses to them.
As for prior to 9/11 and during the Clinton years, again one has to wonder why you continue to try and push their arguments made when all the intelligence was clearly not pushed out onto the table in efforts to bolster a case for war. Had they seen such evidence in a case for war and regime change, and if they continued to support their "yea" vote for invasion at that point, then they would hear the same criticism from me regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.
It's one of the biggest reasons why I criticize Hillary, as you well know.
Again, we've been down this road. |
i don't care what the Democrats said about Saddam prior to the invasion as it applies to this leftist/anti-war talking point: you said we were lied to about motivations for regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE REAL MOTIVE WAS? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
NO!!!!! how can i fault Clinton on the merits of the Iraqi Liberation Act if i support regime change? |
Fair enough.
| quote: | | i don't care what the Democrats said about Saddam prior to the invasion as it applies to this leftist/anti-war talking point: you said we were lied to about motivations for regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE REAL MOTIVE WAS? |
What do I think personally? As I've said many times in the past, given what we know I personally think it was more of a geopolitical move, both economically and militarily.
Is that what you wanted to know?
Added in Edit: I also want to include that I think there were some definite pure political motives involved as well. Every president has a bit of a selfish intent on how he wants to be remembered - Bush has made it clear that his Iraq War is one of, if not THE defining point of his presidency.
As you and most other Bush supporters have been reduced to saying now - let history judge him.
I most certainly will. |
|
|
| erdega |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
first off i take no offence to having Neoconservative principles so using it as pejorative means nothing to me. |
of course you shouldn't be ashamed, you probably didn't do anything personally
| quote: | | Originally posted by Q5echo my problem with liberals focuses mainly on the it's foreign policy aspects because i believe the West, the free world, is at a very serious crossroads. domestically, i'm am far more un-conservative than you may think |
What I understand very well is that Neocons are liberals from earlier times with explicit american imperialistic and zionist nationalist lines whereas most other liberals are hidden or divided with that agenda and neocons splintered from the other liberals thus creating 2 parties of one. There is nothing conservative about "neocons" and their differences with liberals are negligeable or non existant on the foreign policy. All the neocons supported attack on serbia as a sign or american power and american/zionist support for islam just like most if not all liberals supported attack on Iraq for different reasons
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010303.html
| quote: | | Originally posted by Q5echo whats with your problem with the spead of freedom and democracy and release from the binds of totalitarian and fascist rule? |
Because commies , nazis and every other totalitarian ideology claimed to spread freedom and neocons are just as totalitarian and ambitious as them. How dare you condone lies and aggression ? Another hypocricy is that neocons and liberal imperialists support for islamic fundamentalists seems only related to their relation to israel amd/or economic goal like oil
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
when did i EVER say i hated Ron Paul?:rolleyes: |
Maybe you didn't , maybe you try to ignore him or diminish him , it doesn't matter. What does matter is that he is conservative, has principles, has views and actions in complete opposite of the neocons and has even called them out publicly and frankly I have never heard anyone else let alone in public positions such as himself call them out, that takes courage
| quote: | | Originally posted by Q5echo ...and f**k the Clintons. who gives, really, wtf they think? |
well you see , there is more than a good chance the other clinton will be your next prez and frankly I don't see anyone coming close , certainly not newbies like Obama and Guliani so be mindful of that. But on the other hand , they are hidden "neocons" who sort of play fake opposition sometime but their deeds and actions are parallel to neoconism. Besides remember that Bush went in promising not to go to "other countries telling them what to do" in reference to Clinton and he certainly became much worse than that when he came to power. Hillary has promised to "end the war" but I fear it might just mean the opposite |
|
|
| erdega |
MisterOpus1
why the hell do you defend clinton , do you think he is antiwar or something?
He is just as neocon and zionist nationalist as Bush is
You talk about Iraq but what about Serbia and what about Clinton setting up war with iraq with unjustifiable sanctions and so called iraq regime chance bill which was a setup for war?
Just because Bush is bad and indeed much worse than Clinton doesn't make Clinton anymore than he ever was |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by erdega
MisterOpus1
why the hell do you defend clinton , do you think he is antiwar or something? |
Did I ever imply that he was?
| quote: | | He is just as neocon and zionist nationalist as Bush is |
I disagree. Although there are instances scattered throughout Clinton's presidency along with certain foreign policies that have those undertones of neoconservatism, that doesn't even hold a candle compared to Bush's regime who's Administration and foreign policies are almost exclusively run by the neocon extremists.
But if you're going to make a comparison between the two, I'm all ears.
| quote: | | You talk about Iraq but what about Serbia |
You mean attacking by airstrikes only with the multilateral forces of NATO and the blessing from the United Nations to strike a dictator who crossed national boundaries and created genocide to ethnic Albanians in Kosovo?
Hardly a comparison to Gulf II, which we had a hapless dictator who was contained within his own country while at the same time we drew our entire attention away from the bastard that attacked us on 9/11 in Tora Bora. It was the reason why I supported Gulf I with Bush Sr., however, in order to liberate Kuwait.
Now if someone is going to state that we should attack countries for what their crazy leaders and dictators are doing to their people within their own boundaries, I'd be willing to entertain that idea. However I think you would be ignoring at least a dozen or more current dictators and genocidal situations to which we've hardly even lifted a finger over the years (and that stems back to include Clinton as well).
| quote: | | and what about Clinton setting up war with iraq with unjustifiable sanctions and so called iraq regime chance bill which was a setup for war? |
The sanctions by themselves were not a means to go to war. If you believe that, please cite those sanctions and demonstrate their deliberate intent of inciting or being an aggressor to war. They were a means, however, to contain a dictator and get him to comply with UN resolutions. There were definite negatives to those sanctions, but those were the results of what Saddam actions and his attempts to undermine them, not by the sanctions themselves.
And if there's going to be any discussion on the food-for-oil scandal, just be prepared to accept the fact that the U.S. had very willing and compliant oil companies happily playing along with it (and I'd suspect that both presidents knew full well about it as well).
And the very distinct point I was making to Q earlier (I've made it many times here before) is that while Clinton discussed regime change, his policies were still very much in line with Bush Sr.'s policies of containment. And to that end alone they were effective. If Clinton had decided to go to war and invade Iraq on the evidence presented to him in the manner to which it was presented in the same fashion as Bush's current Administration had done, and if Clinton had willingly taken his eye off of the bastard who's group attacked us on our own soil on 9/11 when we had his ass on the run in the hills of Tora Bora, then under no circumstances would I ever support him whatsoever.
As it stands, however, that was clearly not the case. But again, if the "evidence" was presented to him:
-by a newly created group created by his Vice President Al Gore and set up by one of the biggest neocons Douglas Feith (Office of Special Plans or OSP)
-that there was no yellow-cake being bought from Niger by a man sent by the CIA to investigate those claims
-that the lying sack of Chalabi and his source of information, Mr. Curveball, were all liars and their stories were not to be believed by our intelligence agencies as well as other foreign agencies (Germany)
-the aluminum tubes were not being used for centrifuge by any stretch of the imagination by our intelligence agencies and our foremost nuclear experts and scientists (for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...ast/03tube.html)
-that the al-Qaeda connections were extremely weak at best and highly likely to be non-existent
-that the IAEA chief had repeatedly stated there were no WMDs to be found
Then yes, you would have the exact same criticism from me of Clinton. As it stands, Clinton's actions have no comparison on such levels. But again if you're willing to make that comparison, I'm willing to listen.
| quote: | | Just because Bush is bad and indeed much worse than Clinton doesn't make Clinton anymore than he ever was |
Don't misunderstand me. I've got plenty of gripes about Clinton and some of his foreign (and domestic) policies. It's one of the biggest reasons why I don't want yet another Clinton as POTUS. But again the comparison isn't a very worthy one unless you're going to present further evidence to support your case. |
|
|
| LatinLover |
| Clintos foreign policy was terrible! Just look at NK he gave them money in exchange for NK to allow inspectors and keep a "transparent" nuclear program. What did NK do, it injected that money to strengthen its program and military. Clinton is the one to blame for allowing a genocide to occur and Clinton is the one to blame for not assassinating OBL when we had a chance too, as Clinton even admits it HE FAILED ON THAT PART. |
|
|
| LatinLover |
| By the way.... Ofcourse America went to war for a regime change. That is why Bush prior going to war went on public and told the world that he had given Hussein( 24 or 48 hrs i cant recall right) to leave Iraq if not the US was going to invade :rolleyes: Dosent take a genius to find that out Opus :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| hey latinlover, if bin laden admitted defeat in iraq does this mean the US can leave now?:gsmile: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
By the way.... Ofcourse America went to war for a regime change. That is why Bush prior going to war went on public and told the world that he had given Hussein( 24 or 48 hrs i cant recall right) to leave Iraq if not the US was going to invade :rolleyes: Dosent take a genius to find that out Opus :rolleyes: |
Umm, yeah, Bush did say that two days prior to attacking. But if that were the case, then why did he even bother sending UN weapons inspectors in the first place? If it were his idea to attack, then there would be no need to send in weapons inspectors to supposedly look for WMDs since that would be a moot point.
And please don't perform revisionist history on us here. I remember quite well why we went to Iraq - because Saddam was a "grave" and "imminent" danger, as well as the threat of "mushroom clouds" lingering over our heads. Not to mention unmanned drones, missiles that could reach our coasts, high-ranking al-Qaeda connections, and purchasing weapons-grade yellowcake from Niger for nuclear arms. These were the primary reasons why we went to Iraq - all which was sold to the public and to Congress as we took our eye off the ball with al Qaeda in Tora Bora.
I'm curious as to whether or not you actually approve of leaving the hunt for bin Laden to corrupt Afghan warlords in order to divert our attention to a hapless, contained dictator in Iraq. Was that actually okay with you? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
Clinton is the one to blame for allowing a genocide to occur |
Are you talking about Rwanda here? Because yes, the fact that the US did nothing is shameful. But did Bush Jr. really learn from that mistake? Darfur is still raging, as is the Hutu-Tutsi conflict, albeit now in the DRC. |
|
|
|
|
