Excellent NYT editorial/Senate Intell. Committe report on Iraq

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by B_becominghorse, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. B_becominghorse

    B_becominghorse New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    new york city
  2. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Newpapers will NEVER call a politician a liar. They will lead you to the water but they WILL not make you drink it. Unfortunately the planet is full of slow learners and it takes a while before they realize the truth particularly in public office. In private business ineffectual leaders are usually quickly dispatched.
     
  3. B_becominghorse

    B_becominghorse New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    new york city
    Oh no, they call Bush a liar a lot, or have allowed Paul Krugman to call him such for a long, long time, as far back at least as 2004 if not earlier. Here they really ARE calling him a liar, perhaps in the major editorial spot for the first time, by saying 'he did know' or 'he should have known', but not using the word since, for example, when they demonstrate that 'intent' was meant, they still have to cite something that meant intent. But they are mainly being lawyerly, I think, here. I hadn't meant to say I thought they'd compromised in their language, and I don't think they did. And fortrunately, the Republicans on the committee didn't prevail.
     
  4. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    Let me get this straight...you're holding up the opinion of one newspaper editor as a rebuttal to the formal investigative report from the United States Senate Intelligence Committee?

    You must be joking...
     
  5. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    I'm not refering to the editorials or opinon pages. I mean the pages written by journalists. None of the network anchors would ever on a newscast call a government offical a liar or the front pages of USAToday or NYTimes.
     
  6. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    well, in all fairness, nearly half of the Senate Intelligence Committe were democrats back before the war as well...why didn't they speak out more forcefully and publicly back then?


    whether you like Bush or not (I don't) the article makes very clear that for all his failures or flaws or hyperbole, this was in fact true...

    "The report confirms one serious intelligence failure: President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials were told that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons and did not learn that these reports were wrong until after the invasion."



    For any President, all he can do is the best he can with what he has intelligence info wise, and if he feels going to war is necessary based on that, he must make the case.

    I don't know about you all, but in the Wake of 9/11, i was ready to light up any country that was anti-american and had any hint of bio or chemical weapons, even if all they had was a sling-shot to fire it us at.

    I lost 4 friends and acquaintances on 9/11, and the mother and sister of one of them was in my home the whole day, desperately trying to find out what had happened to him.

    I was against the invasion of Iraq at the time it occurred, because to me Afghanistan was more important.

    But that information is a fact despite Bush and Cheney's blustering and exagerating what they felt they needed to do to sell it.

    Doesn't make it right....but it is not the first time that leaders of a country went to war and had to sell the reasons to the public with less than convincing intel.

    Intel is not an exact science.

    Kennedy was close to ordering a full scale invasion of Cuba...what he didn;t know and was revealed years later, was that the soviets already had nuclear warheads there, and Castro wanted to use them if the U.S. had invaded.

    that would have been a massive intelligence failure as well.

    Bush and Cheney may be idiots, but they are hardly the first to lead a nation into war by stirring up a sense of urgency based on alot of uncertainty, fear, and intelligence that was the best they could get at the time.
     
  7. B_becominghorse

    B_becominghorse New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    new york city
    The Bay of Pigs Invasion had nothing to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis. What is stupid is that the invasion failed and Castro was not killed. Anyway, the U.S. did invade, just not successfully.

    I lost friends in 9/11 and have spent years getting over the horror of seeing the buildings fall less than 2 miles from my window. But his has nothing to do with the fact of wanting to just 'llght up any country', which is stupid. In fact, you have phrased this in a way that means the one intelligence failure sanctions everything Bush did. They definitely knew that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with each other, nevermind the intelligence on the weapons. But they used that one too, and they never stopped using it years later, when it had been fully disproved.
     
    #7 B_becominghorse, Jun 6, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2008
  8. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    no Saddam and Al Qaieda didn't have anything to do with one another, but saddam did have contacts with other terror groups over the years, to various degrees, and that is a concern, especially when you offer even a hint of chemical or bio weapons.

    Frankly, no matter how dubious, i am glad Saddam was removed. Just because he waas not causing trouble at the time, does not mean he wouldn't in the future.

    his record of seeking nuclear weapons, attacking Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, gassing Kurds, defying the UN, environmental terrorism, kicking out weapons inspectors is hardly a record that would lend one to trust in the better angels of his natures taking hold does it?

    frankly, a world without a lunatic wild-card like Saddam Hussein in it is okey dokey with me.


     
  9. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Huum 2 trillion borrowed dollars and tens of thousands of lives lost. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell with not one shot fired and not one life lost. That is the kind of revolution that says to the world what the United States and it's allies stand for.
     
    #9 sargon20, Jun 6, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2008
  10. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    actually, the war has only cost 526 billion so far...that $2 trillion figure is completely bogus, and only based on the high end estimate of a self described war opponent, Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

    his full prediction was actually not $ 2 trillion, but 1 to 2 trillion...which is quite difference.

    Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion - Eye on the Economy - MSNBC.com

    National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home


    as for the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact falling without a shot fired or life lost (or dollar spent, you didn't say), surely you cannot say that with a straight face. It was not a revolution...it was an economic and social collapse.

    The cold war was a proxy war, an intelligence war, a covert war fought in hundreds of countries around the world.

    it is absurd and ignorant in the extreme to make that assertion...if you will not take my word for it, take this articles then

    CNN Cold War - Epilogue: What the Cold War cost


    there is no doubt that the war is costing us a great deal in terms of financial cost and + 4000 us solders killed and thousands others wounded.

    But that is the sad reality of war. It costs money and people die...it has been like that for thousands of years and will be like that for thousands more, if we last that long
     
  11. Qua

    Qua
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,507
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    The only defense I can reallly come up with (I don't agree with the war, just playing devil's advocate) is that none of this should have been an issue because Saddam was SUPPOSED to have UN weapons inspectors dogging him. Thus there should never have been any confusion over intelligence. Violating this requirement put Iraq in default on its agreement with the UN ending the Gulf War, and could have been a justification for giving its ass a whooping.
     
  12. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    bingo.
     
  13. B_becominghorse

    B_becominghorse New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    new york city
    Nobody likes Saddam, but it would be better if Bin Laden were dead, having been concentrated on single-mindedly, since you can't get past the fact the Bin Laden, and not Saddam, committed the 9/11 atrocities. There are plenty of terrible tyrants in the world we could have taken out, but it was idiotic to concentrate on someone who didn't commit the crime you were purportedly addressing. In this case, even Obama has his head on straight: It's Pakistan, not Iraq. I am not going to give credit for taking out Saddam, because it would be better for him to still be in power and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda taken care of, than simply taking out a 'monstrous tyrant' because he might have had something, and might do something. We KNEW Bin Laden had done something, and we also pretended we were going to Iraq for this purpose. There's the idiocy.

    I think Qua's point is good, too but regardless of intelligence failures, these failures did NOT point to involvemend by Hussein in the 9/11 attacks. Using that as a pretense to attack another 'bad nation' is a Minor League, B-list sort of sensibility. Anyone that wants to get a criminal goes first after THAT criminal, not another one that might think it was hunky-dory that some other terrorist he didn't care for shot up the WTC. Al Qaeda certainly didn't play for shitty little stakes like that, they went all the way to the top. And we didn't.
     
    #13 B_becominghorse, Jun 6, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2008
  14. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Have you forgotten to talk about the number of Iraqi dead? They're just lab mice right in this giant experientment in pre-emptive war. They do not count. Their tears and loss are just 'the sad reality of war'. You don't sound very sad at all. In fact you sound happy.

    and one more thing:

    rev·o·lu·tion

    A sudden or momentous change in a situation

    revolution: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com
     
    #14 sargon20, Jun 6, 2008
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2008
  15. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    agreed. but that was a mistake born of nervousness, overeagerness, worry etc.

    2002-2003 was an extremely nervewracking time here...everytime i heard a plane flyover i looked up to make sure it didn't crash. Everytime the pwer went out, my first thought was terror attack. Remember the major blackout here? It was crazy...everytime someone saw a pile of sugar on a desk, people called 911 thinking it was anthrax...

    it was crazy...this nation has never felt so insecure since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    They jumped the gun on Iraq...everyone knows it...and they underestimated the post-war needs, as well as how the iraqis would react to the sudden freedom and upheaval, figuring freedom would be a more intoxicating prospect then intersectional strife.

    Bush is the president and must shoulder the blame, but it is not entirely unreasonable to see a guy who really did need to take action very quickly, to assuage a very scared and angry population, that wanted to kick somebody's ass very badly to soothe our nerves rightly or wrongly and it was a situation far stickier than any President had to face in a long time.

    Bush needs to take the blame for a lot of mishandling, but i cannot condemn him completely for trying to do what he and his administration was doing.

    I do not know how much better Gore, or Clinton, or Dole, or anyone could have really handled that situation.




     
  16. B_becominghorse

    B_becominghorse New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    new york city
    Yes, agree that taking out Hussein after getting bin Laden makes sense, but fact is, we still need the drive to get Bin Laden. He and his fuckheads are there, and they are known for almost a year to be strengthening. I have no confidence in the new Pakistani govt. to do anything better than the Musharraf one did, with all this impossibly complex negotiating with 'the tribes'. I picture a sensation in that area so incomprehensible to what we know in the West that I really can't imagine it. Constant threats and purely local things that people in the Pakistani cities probably don't understand--ancient primitive rituals and blood associations and internecine mob wars, endless. Sometimes I think Waziristan almost has a spell about it that is working. Policy toward it is almost impossible to formulate and carry out--not only by the U.S., but by whatever Pakistani government as well.
     
  17. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home


    1. I am aware of what a revolution is. But the fact is that it was not that sudden. It had been coming for years. You are simply talking of the collapse itself....even then, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union certainly didn't fall that quickly in some bloodless revolution.

    In 1989, many Eastern Europeans, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Albania, the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria all overthrew their governments.

    Last i checked, Gorbachev had been reforming Russia for awhile...before some pro-soviets began plotting a coup.

    it took a full years from when the wall fell in Germany to the eventual dissolution of the Warsaw PAct in full in 1991.

    You cannot just discount the solidarity movements and all the other factors. That is extreme ignorance

    you stated - "The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell with not one shot fired and not one life lost. That is the kind of revolution that says to the world what the United States and it's allies stand for."



    if that was the case then that should have just happened in the 50s...ah well, la dee da, socialism was fun, boom collapse.

    That "revolution" was nearly a half century of warfare in a variety of ways, economic, political, military.

    Sorry, totally off base.



    2. I haven't forgotten the number of Iraqi dead. However the vast majority were not killed by Americans. They are killing each other in sectarian violence. If they were able to hash out their differences without violence, there would be far less.
    Millions have died in civil wars. That is how things change, that is how dictatorships are overthrown. Our birth was a violent founding of vicious partisanship vs. loyalists that went on for 8 years costing hundreds of thousands of lives...then we had a civil war for another 5 that cost millions.

    That's life. That is what happens. All free countries are born in and of violence. Wherever they are.

    They are not lab mice...they are people, and sometimes people get stuck in war. War began before Bush, and wont end with Bush.

    there are approximately 27 major wars and conflicts going on in the world right now. Alot of people suffer all around the globe, and that is not the fault of the US.

    I think you have a serious problem between distinguishing a sad reality, and me being happy about it.

    In fact, your pathetic insult that i seem to believe that:

    "They do not count. Their tears and loss are just 'the sad reality of war'. You don't sound very sad at all. In fact you sound happy."


    Is just a pathetic excuse for you since your logic cannot differentiate with killing to be cruel and sadistic and deliberate, and the sad, inescapable fact of war and conflict on this planet.

    Please show me where i "sound happy" that people are dying. I'd like you to point that despicable slander out to me.

     
  18. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home

    I could not agree more.
     
  19. HyperHulk

    HyperHulk New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    883
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, Oz
    Flashy--I understand what you're saying here, that the war was a mistake but how can we really blame Bush if he was given the wrong information? I think that part of the issue though is whether possessing the wmd justified an unprovoked pre-emptive war? Scott McClellan seems to be suggesting that the decision to go to war was seen more so that Bush could write a legacy that would endure and permeate the next campaign cycle.

    To what degree did Bush and Rove decide to spin the tragedy of 9/11 to their best advantage? Avenge the failures of Bush sr, create a legacy to rival Clinton's, ensure a 2004 win and shift the balance of economic power and control of oil in Iraq to US controlled corporations? So then when presented with information that could pave the way for a war that America would buy, Bush & co ran with it without bothering to challenge it. And when the information was challenged, it was shut down or buried--hello Plame. It's not like the US didn't know that Saddam was nutjob with a military force before.

    I think Bush/Rove took the opportunistic approach to starting the Iraq war--it never needed to happen even with the "false" intelligence. Then then turned around and sold the threat and the need for war to the rest of congress and the US--and considering that most of the country was collectively suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome following 9/11, most people supported Bush without questioning it too much. This is where I apply what you said about Bush to Clinton. What choice did she really have in in initially supporting the war? Had she opposed the war, with the climate as it was up until about 1.5 ago, she would have been attacked without mercy and I'm not sure if she would have survived politically. Obama had the luxury of being outside the National political structure when he opposed the war.

    Have we ever learned what intelligence they actually had? Was it just informants or was it pictures or what? And how could they have gotten enough intelligence that could justify a war but be so false?

    I still will never get over why Bush and Rove are not being investigated for the war.
     
  20. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Here's something:

    BILL MOYERS: Congress did not stand up to George Bush for five years when it was controlled by Republicans. And I don't see any strong evidence that the Democrats are playing the role that you think the Congress should be playing.

    BRUCE FEIN: That is correct. But it doesn't exculpate the president that Congress has not sought immediately to sanctions his excesses.

    BRUCE FEIN: --exactly right. And Bill, this could not happen if we had a Congress that was aggressive, if we had a Congress the likes of Watergate when Nixon was president and he tried to-- obstruct justice and defeat the course of law. We have a Congress that basically is an invertebrate.

    BILL MOYERS: But why is Congress supine?

    JOHN NICHOLS: They are supine for two reasons. One, they are politicians who do not-- quite know how to handle the moment. And they know that something very bad happened on September 11th, 2001, now five years ago, six years ago. And they don't know how to respond to it. Whereas Bush and Karl Rove have responded in a supremely political manner to it and, frankly, jumped around them. That's one part of the problem.

    BILL MOYERS: Jumped around Congress?

    JOHN NICHOLS: Jumped around Congress at every turn. I mean, they don't even tell them, they don't consult with them. They clearly have no regard for the checks and balances. But the other thing that's-- in play here-- and I think this is a-- much deeper problem. I think the members of our Congress have no understanding of the Constitution. And as a result, they-- don't understand their critical role in the governance of the country.

    They-- it-- when the Republicans are in charge, they see their job as challenging-- or as supporting the president in whatever he does, defending him, making it possible for him to do whatever he wants. When the Democrats are in charge, they seem to see their role as trying to score political points as opposed to what ought to be sort of a-- common ground of--

    BILL MOYERS: --because the fact of the matter is approaching an-- election year, you don't really think, do you, that the Democrats want to experience a backlash by taking on a Republican president in an election-

    JOHN NICHOLS: Well, it--

    BILL MOYERS: --or that the Republicans want to impeach an administration that they elected in 2000 and reelected in 2004? There is a political element here, right?

    BRUCE FEIN: There's always going to be a political element, Bill. But in the past, there's always been a few statesmen who have said, "You know, the political fallout doesn't concern me as much as the Constitution of the United States." We have to keep that undefiled throughout posterity 'cause if it's not us, it will corrode. It will disappear on the installment plan. And that has been true in the past. When we had during Watergate Republicans and remember Barry Goldwater, Mr. Republican, who approached the president and said, "You've got to resign." There have always been that cream who said the country is more important than my party. We don't have that anymore.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted