Senate report on pre-war intelligence

[SecDef]

You just "fixed it" to remove the emphasis on the democrats. The democrats are the majority party in congress. They could stop the funding for the War if they wanted to. Instead, the democrats continue to fund the War. Because the democrats want to continue the War.

You know, with a commander-in-chief who is unwilling to activate a plan to pull troops out, of course it would be irresponsible to insta-defund the war.

The correct term always has been, and will continue to be "quagmire"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I wouldn't mind seeing 100% turnover in congressional seats over the next few elections.

 

[TwoXForr]

Well Beno you brought it up about the Dictators I assumed from your post there was another dictator that we should have gone after instead of Saddam. My mistake obviously.


But back to my point.

Did Saddam have links to other terrorist groups, and if so, did those terrorist groups ever once kill Americans or target Americans?

This is a question for anyone.

And what should the United States have done instead of starting conventional warfare against Nations that harbor, supply and fund terrorists.

Is the war in Afganaistan better, worse or the same as the war in Iraq?

 

[Fremmer]

of course it would be irresponsible to insta-defund the war.

LOL. That's some pretty slick spin. The demos continue to fund the War because it would be "irresponsible" to stop funding, which would then stop the War. Stated otherwise, the demos don't like the War, but they continue to fund the War, because ending the funding would end the war. When the money dries up, the cut-and-run (I mean, the 'redeployment') mission has to be implemented. Because you can't supply an army without funds, which doesn't matter now, because the democrats have funded the ammunition, explosives, missles, guns, and everything else necessary to fight the War.

The democrats could have stopped the War two years ago; no more money, period! But they didn't do that, because then they'd have one less thing to complain about. They would rather sacrifice the lives of American soldiers in a War they don't support for the sole purpose of obtaining political advantage. Does the Senate Report mention Obama's prior votes to fund the War?

 

[Alleykat]

I voted for Bush twice. Given the dismal offerings of the DemocRATs, I'd vote for Bush again, even today. However, nobody, including the Prez has articulated any justification for the current mess in Iraq. History will prove Iraq to be just as nebulous an enterprise as was that debacle in Vietnam. Trying to bring Western Civilization to uncivilized tribal savages has never worked and is not likely to succeed now. To think otherwise is just plain hubris.

 

[SecDef]

The democrats could have stopped the War two years ago; no more money, period! But they didn't do that, because then they'd have one less thing to complain about. They would rather sacrifice the lives of American soldiers in a War they don't support for the sole purpose of obtaining political advantage.

Their platform for election in Nov 2006 was for that, they failed miserably to represent those that voted for them. No doubt. However, BOTH sides of the aisle would rather sacrifice the lives of soldiers for political advantage.

Current politicians have three choices for the voters re: Iraq.
1) Stay the course, regardless of the situation or the wishes of the Iraqi people and government and US soldiers. (John McCain and to some extent Hillary Clinton)
2) Put in a calendar/time table for withdrawal. (Barack Obama, also to some extent Hillary Clinton -- she really was wishy washy about her position on this)
3) Get the hell out now. (Ron Paul)

US soldiers gave more money to the Ron Paul campaign than to John McCain. I think that speaks pretty loudly that they are in a war/occupation they do not believe in 100%. Unless you just think that these soldiers are selfish, I guess.

Does the Senate Report mention Obama's prior votes to fund the War?

Two responses for this:

a) the senate report was about intelligence (or lack thereof) prior to the war. Bringing Obama's war funding votes into it would make zero sense. I don't know why you bring it up in this context. There are plenty of threads to grind you Obama axe.

b) The war funding votes are different from the vote to authorize the war. These are two different situations. Unless you think that our actions in Iraq didn't have any impact?

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Pleanty of blame on all sides for this debacle of a war.

 

[Benonymous]

What Conclusion

So in the wash up, we have both of the major parties equally to blame for the Iraq invasion. Maybe not equally, but neither lilly white. So that must pose the question "who is being served?" It's not the servicemen, it's not the citizens of the USA, they were never in any danger from Iraq. So maybe its the military-industrial complex, with the Pentagon at its core. Let's face it, they are the only real beneficiaries in this ghastly mess.

I really find this "cut and run" spin just priceless. So the fact that Iraq has been turned into a destabilised civil-war state by the actions of the US government is now justification for staying there and compounding the disaster. As in Vietnam, there is no prospect of "victory". Only the long tail of denial until the last US serviceman is killed on the final day of a grand failure.

 

[GoSlash27]

I really find this "cut and run" spin just priceless.

My favorite is "date for surrender", as if our forces would subsequently be herded into Iraqi prison camps under white flags or the Iraqi insurgents would install a puppet government here.

So that must pose the question "who is being served?"

Why, the politicians themselves, of course.
George started this little party at the behest of some folks who didn't know what they were doing. There's always been precious little room for dissent ( or arguably competence)in this administration and during the runup very few politicians in either party had the courage to go against the jingoistic fervor of the electorate.
The Republicans milked it for all it's worth and are afraid to reverse their positions for fear they'll get voted out or undercut by their own party.
The Democrats even now are afraid to pull the plug because the war #1 makes good campaign fodder and #2 they don't want to be painted as the folks who "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory". Not that I believe that personally, but you know what I mean...

Long short, it's all about politics. The lives of our servicemen and women invariably take a backseat to votes. A shame. The courage of our troops squandered due to the cowardice of their leaders. The troops lay their lives on the line while the politicians won't even risk their jobs.

 

[poptime]

While I am no fan of this war or president Bush, there are a few things that should be pointed out.
To my knowledge there are no other dictators who:
a. have belligerently started two wars with their neighbors,
b. have used poison gas to kill tens of thousands of their own citizens, if not hundreds of thousands,
c. have continued to defy a whole raft of U.N. sanctions for 10 years, and
d. have attempted to assassinate a President of the United States.
No one denies these points. Is the war justified? Only history will tell.
Dwight

 

[GoSlash27]

No one denies these points. Is the war justified? Only history will tell.

By that reasoning....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWshPH_jsjQ

Was Loki "justified" in going on a rampage in the Mooby boardroom with a Desert Eagle because "they're all finks"?

No.

 

[TwoXForr]

Goslash

Using a movie, a Kevin Smith movie no less, to compare to a war where real persons kill, die and are wounded is pretty poor. Study up on history and come up with a real example.

Again I ask:

Did Saddam ever support or assist any terrorist groups that targeted or attempted to target American or American intrests?

And secondly will the world be a better or a worse place with Saddams torture chambers closed, and his use of Chemical warfare against his own peoples ended?

 

[ssilicon]

Democrats that I know just *hate it* when they're off on one of their anti-Bush rants, and I ask them "Why haven't the democrats, who are in control of congress, cut off funding for the conflict in Iraq?" It's not like he's a king and there are no checks and balances...

The answer is simply that both sides are corrupt, and more and more seem to exist to give the people the illusion that they actually participate in government a little bit (by electing representatives to office). In reality, more and more power is being usurped and corrupted, bending the wealth and labors of the masses to the few.

 

[obxned]

I read the papers back then, and watched the evening news. The very same sleazy politicians who now say that they are against the war effort were then asking why Bush wasn't doing anything about those WMD and that nasty old Sodomy guy.

These same morons and moronettes cry about the high price of oil, but locked us out of some of the largest reserves known, and weep over how expensive the poor voter’s food has become, but force us to subsidize turning good food into horribly inefficient fuel.

The only terrorist group I fear is the one in Washington, because they may actually succeed in destroying America.

 

[Master Blaster]

Did the report also say that the Democrats who voted almost unanimously to give Bush the authorization to go to war with Iraq, were NITWITS.

If not how did they get away with leaving that part out??

Really, their vote, and their cheerleading for invading Iraq, is on the record.

So their arguement is that they couldnt read all the reports that clearly showed it was unwarranted because they were too dumb to comprehend the big words, or that the dummy Bush fooled them, which makes them what Gullible fools unqualified to run the country at best?
Or is their arguement that they knew all along and voted for the war so they could blame Bush and win the next election which means they abdicated their responsibility to protect the american people?

 

[HJB]

Did the report also say that the Democrats who voted almost unanimously to give Bush the authorization to go to war with Iraq, were NITWITS.

For the record... A majority of House Democrats voted against the authorization, and the Senate Democrats were split about half, or close to it.

 

[SteelCore]

While I am no fan of this war or president Bush, there are a few things that should be pointed out.
To my knowledge there are no other dictators who:
a. have belligerently started two wars with their neighbors,
b. have used poison gas to kill tens of thousands of their own citizens, if not hundreds of thousands,
c. have continued to defy a whole raft of U.N. sanctions for 10 years, and
d. have attempted to assassinate a President of the United States.
No one denies these points. Is the war justified? Only history will tell.
Dwight

Hi Dwight,

Just a couple of points about the above:

b. Those gassings were done while Saddam was considered a US ally. The US government knew about the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war but did not sever ties with Saddam. You see, Saddam wasn't considered an "evil dictator" then. He only became evil when the US decided he wasn't useful anymore. But this bit of info has been tossed down the memory hole; Americans are expected to forget it. More details here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

c. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, other nations were in defiance of more UN sanctions than Saddam's Iraq, including (if memory serves) Morocco, Turkey, and Israel. Yet the US never uttered a peep about this. There's one standard for the US and nations it considers useful (or who have powerful US lobbies), and another standard for every other nation. The US government only cares about UN resolutions when they serve the US government's purposes.

 

[SteelCore]

As for the blame for this war, I agree completely that it lies in both Republican and Democratic hands, although the neocons who have hijacked the Republican party and mainstream conservatism since 9/11 are primarily at fault. What the Democrats did was go along with the lies from the beginning (even though they were perfectly obvious to anyone not blinded by post-9/11 jingoism) and show a complete lack of guts even after the American public finally woke up and elected the Democrats to bring US troops home.

A gullible public that still hasn't learned to distrust its caviar-eating, champagne-sipping leadership -- even after the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, and all sorts of other official lies, deceptions, propaganda, and psychological operations -- is also to blame for the invasion. I have nothing but contempt for all the bubbas and patriotards who let Fox News and talk radio do all their thinking for them and never actually investigate any issues themselves.

For anyone who still doesn't know what the neocon agenda is:

Intrepid commentators like Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute would have America proceed incrementally, beginning with the elimination of Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein. Baghdad would be first, followed by Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. From the demise of these and perhaps one or two other Islamic tyrannies (Libya and the Sudan), a chain reaction will supposedly follow and transform Islamdom.

http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/06-issue/eidelberg-6.htm

Neoconservatism is a radical Zionist political movement intended to transform mainstream conservatism such that it constantly pushes for wars against Israel's Arab neighbors -- the goal being to exploit US military power, at US expense in blood and money, for Israel's gain. It has already succeeded brilliantly in pulling the wool over the eyes of putative American conservatives. The leaders of the neoconservative movement are exclusively Jews and "Christian Zionists" who have a deep devotion to Israel. By no means are all Jews neocons (most vote Democrat); heck, I'm ethnically half-Jewish myself. But make no mistake: the "War on Terror" was conceived by people who would be perfectly happy if the US were destroyed as long as Israel benefitted enough from it.

The neocon leadership, including such commentators as Norman Podhoretz and Charles Krauthammer, is still not giving up its stumping for war with Iran. They know the American public is extremely gullible, so they figure: why not try for round two?

 

[fallingblock]

Benonymous.....

What a thoroughly corrupt political sytem America has.

That's pretty good coming from a fellow Aussie!:

What part of little Johnny Howard wasn't corrupt?

And, Is Kevin Rudd for real - or a figment of the ABC's imagination?

Bob Carr not good enough for NSW? Try Morris Iemma!:barf:

Shoot, Benonymous, Australia nearly holds a patent on corrupt politicians.

All this progress in what was a completely stable country prior the American invasion.

Of course, that assessment would depend upon being Sunni rather than Shi'a.

 

[Benonymous]

Geez Fallingblock, at no time did I say that our pollies were lacking corruption. John Howard proves that in spades! I'll never forget hearing that he opined that the oppressive gun laws here in Australia were "his finest achievement". How fitting, a bunch of draconian laws that cost taxpayers millions (they continue to do so) and ultimately, achieved nothing.

Had that money been spent on social programs, it would have had tangible results.

In addition to that, he became George Bush's "Mini-Me" for the entire period of office that the Iraq war included.

The rest of them, left or right, are interested in nobody but themselves and their parties. What else would you expect? Government itself is a business.

I tell my kids now, so that they won't have to go through the phases of learning "The government doesn't give a stuff about you or your welfare" This obviates the need to ever bother thinking that they do, only to find out that they don't.

Luckily, we have the Shooters Party here in NSW so I can vote in a state election with a clear conscience.

Oh, and the Port Arthur massacre that kicked off the gun control laws. Have a read...

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/palies1.htm

Secular members, don't let the domain name put you off. It's a psy-ops story that you couldn't make up.

 

[fallingblock]

Sad, but true....

No worries, Benonymous, just checking if you'd noticed the local incompetents before going after the ones farther afield.

...he became George Bush's "Mini-Me" for the entire period of office that the Iraq war included.

I've often wondered if "Dubya" actually knew who the little bald guy crowding for a photo actually was?

The rest of them, left or right, are interested in nobody but themselves and their parties. What else would you expect? Government itself is a business.

I'm in Canberra - "Business" (shonky) is the Stanhope crowd.

I tell my kids now, so that they won't have to go through the phases of learning "The government doesn't give a stuff about you or your welfare" This obviates the need to ever bother thinking that they do, only to find out that they don't.

Good parenting....get the false expectations out of the way early.

Luckily, we have the Shooters Party here in NSW so I can vote in a state election with a clear conscience.

They're actually doing some good in the NSW Parliament - not the norm for
most of Australia's 'lesser' parties. Not much to vote for in the ACT!

Oops, I guess we're moving off topic...sorry!