Lest We Forget!

Alex Chambers

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Posts
285
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
A new study shows:

"President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." read more....

First of all--we already knew this, and I am just counting down the days till 1/20/09. Maybe then "our long national nightmare" will be over.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Geo. Tenet?

Oh yeah, George Tenet, director of the CIA resigned... and Bush later awarded him with the Presidential Metal of Freedom.

So much for my memory.:rolleyes:

Ah! But what happened to him?

Tenet received the Medal of Freedom but then got what really mattered: a slick no-show job with a British defense NGO, QinetiQ, which is a spin-off of DERA. He's, "an independent non-executive director." Send him to the UK where the general public won't know who he is! Plus he got to write his (rather inaccurate) memoirs.

I know sometimes I write age-long posts but what I posted should give everyone an idea of what is really going on. It's not about the WMDs. WMDs and the evils of Saddam, the spread of freedom, etc. were all tactical tools to achieve a greater strategic goal. The US was never under any true threat from Saddam. Saddam did have a few WMDs, many of which were moved to Syria just before and during the invasion, but these were all tactical weapons.

To understand how things work you have to dig a little deeper but not much. It suffices to let the news media play the stories as reported because those in power know that most people don't have the time, ability, or even desire to figure things out. It all happens in the open but is kept low key.

What happened was that the faction, of which Bush is part, needed reasons to create a war scenario and they wisely used 9/11 as a bait-and-switch. They looked at possible reasons to get people to go along with war and chose WMDs, shadowy connections between Saddam and al Qaeda, and Saddam's tyranny as reasons people would go along with it. After all, Saddam had some contact with known al Qaeda operatives, had caches of gas, and really was a tyrant. There was ample evidence that we would find proof of these things once we got to Iraq. Until then, we had to either invent or suspect and proffer these allegations as fact.

Like all bad conspiracies however, once something gets too big for just a handful of control, it becomes impossible to keep everyone on the same page. Worse, the US couldn't produce the evidence it said was there in Iraq. Worse still, was that the starry-eyed visions of the PNAC of American GIs being welcomed like liberating heroes as they kissed babies and dispensed Hershey bars and nylons failed to become reality.

The worst failure of all, however, was the failure of the PNACs to listen to the Department of State's underlings who kept trying to warn the political appointees of what removing Saddam would mean for Iran and her ally, Russia. With the foil of Saddam removed, Iran would be free, with Russia's Security Council seat, technology, and resources, to press its natural hegemony in the region which is precisely what Iran is doing.
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,963
Media
3
Likes
19,699
Points
643
Gender
Male
Are you thinking that the CIA and M5 fabricated evidence at the request of the President to make an excuse for a war deliberately? That certainly would be criminal. But I would wonder what would Bush gain by this? I think he is more naive than evil myself and that the invasion was more a mistake than a plan.

Did you mean MI5?


I wouldn't describe him as being naive as so many knowledgeable persons, such as Dick Cheney, helped to formulate his schemes. As for gains,
the use of Bush Co.'s scare tactics and lies ensured G.W.Bush's second election victory, justified attacking Iraq and the increase of his Executive powers. Also those who had investments in oil and companies such as Halliburton did well financially as a result of the war.

Taxpayers Lose, Halliburton Gains
 

D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
788
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
161
I wish they could be sentenced to serve in the Afghan or Iraqi army as privates. They would get a very close view of what they have caused.

they haven't caused anything. be greatful that there are people to do the dirty work for your panzie ass. all this BS!! This is a tea party compared to any of the real wars. Thank god there were no TV cameras. war is not a game to see who can spare the most lives. The US has become a bunch of pussies. we're soft and we're ripe for the taking. start learning Chinese althougjh you'll probably be speaking Spannish first.

Sadam was a piece of shit who killed and torture hundreds of thousands and would continue to to so if he were here today the middle east is still in the Middle Ages and needed to be dealt with in such a manor.

You don't have a dialouge with your dog as to why you don't want it on the couch (although I'm sure many of you do) you toss it's ass off.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
I know sometimes I write age-long posts but what I posted should give everyone an idea of what is really going on. It's not about the WMDs. WMDs and the evils of Saddam, the spread of freedom, etc. were all tactical tools to achieve a greater strategic goal. The US was never under any true threat from Saddam. Saddam did have a few WMDs, many of which were moved to Syria just before and during the invasion, but these were all tactical weapons.

So you don't think that the spread of freedom was a real motive? I think some starry-eyed ideologues really thought that democracy is the default human preference, and if democracy could be sprouted somewhere in the Middle East, the region could become relatively democratic over the next two or three decades. And this would remove many of the security threats to the United States and to Israel, its prized vassal. And, these people not being entirely cynical, be good in itself.

What happened was that the faction, of which Bush is part, needed reasons to create a war scenario and they wisely used 9/11 as a bait-and-switch. They looked at possible reasons to get people to go along with war and chose WMDs, shadowy connections between Saddam and al Qaeda, and Saddam's tyranny as reasons people would go along with it. After all, Saddam had some contact with known al Qaeda operatives, had caches of gas, and really was a tyrant. There was ample evidence that we would find proof of these things once we got to Iraq. Until then, we had to either invent or suspect and proffer these allegations as fact.

Sounds very true to me.

Like all bad conspiracies however, once something gets too big for just a handful of control, it becomes impossible to keep everyone on the same page. Worse, the US couldn't produce the evidence it said was there in Iraq. Worse still, was that the starry-eyed visions of the PNAC of American GIs being welcomed like liberating heroes as they kissed babies and dispensed Hershey bars and nylons failed to become reality.

Wasn't that 'worse still' because it marked a defeat of the main goal of the invasion?

The worst failure of all, however, was the failure of the PNACs to listen to the Department of State's underlings who kept trying to warn the political appointees of what removing Saddam would mean for Iran and her ally, Russia. With the foil of Saddam removed, Iran would be free, with Russia's Security Council seat, technology, and resources, to press its natural hegemony in the region which is precisely what Iran is doing.

Bush was surrounded by True Believers. The State Department was full of people who actually look at the world.

I think you're saying something else that I don't quite get, Jason.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
they haven't caused anything. be greatful that there are people to do the dirty work for your panzie ass. all this BS!! This is a tea party compared to any of the real wars. Thank god there were no TV cameras. war is not a game to see who can spare the most lives. The US has become a bunch of pussies. we're soft and we're ripe for the taking. start learning Chinese althougjh you'll probably be speaking Spannish first.

Sadam was a piece of shit who killed and torture hundreds of thousands and would continue to to so if he were here today the middle east is still in the Middle Ages and needed to be dealt with in such a manor.

You don't have a dialouge with your dog as to why you don't want it on the couch (although I'm sure many of you do) you toss it's ass off.

Thank you for proving my point. The propaganda machine worked. Enough people swallowed the line they were given because they don't think critically and didn't have to. This is a pocket war, not a national mobilization where everyone bothers to pay attention because the war comes home to them. Keep wars out of peoples' lives, say the right things. Big_E here has no clue that he's supporting precisely the line that the industrial-military complex want him to think. The Rockwells, Bradleys, Olins, and other billionaires of the world thank you for your support (so long as you don't expect to get into their country clubs).

So you don't think that the spread of freedom was a real motive? I think some starry-eyed ideologues really thought that democracy is the default human preference, and if democracy could be sprouted somewhere in the Middle East, the region could become relatively democratic over the next two or three decades. And this would remove many of the security threats to the United States and to Israel, its prized vassal. And, these people not being entirely cynical, be good in itself.

The, "spread of freedom," was a positive side-effect, however let's be honest. There is no way in Hell the US would allow Iraq to have any real freedoms. Any true election would have to bring into power a pro-American regime and I doubt the US is willing to play political roulette after having gone to all the trouble. They planned, as they have done, to put in place a democracy something like they have in Egypt, which is to say, it's Communist elections with a pro-western veneer. You can vote for the right guy or you can vote for the right guy, and if you vote for anyone else you get visited in the night. There are flavors of democracy and some of them are very bitter.

Wasn't that 'worse still' because it marked a defeat of the main goal of the invasion?

I wish I could have such faith. The fact is the invasion was a success in that Iraq is in the hands of the US and the oil contracts have been handed to the right companies and the US now has a strategic foothold in the region that carries, unlike Israel, Oman, Kuwait, or Qatar, some real strategic advantage. It is not a success in that old tribal and religious hostilities have been reawakened and Iranian regional ambitions facilitated, not to mention the obvious embarrassment it has caused the Bush administration.

Bush was surrounded by True Believers. The State Department was full of people who actually look at the world. I think you're saying something else that I don't quite get, Jason.

The PNACs, the True Believers, satisfied the monetary and strategic objectives of entering Iraq but did not satisfy the ethical objectives. To my mind it's a chicken-and-the-egg question. Were Cheney et al so naive to believe that PNAC's funding came from altruistic sources with no economic goal supreme in mind? Do they truly believe in neoconservatism or were they swayed by the Elmer Gantrys of neoconservatism who pocket their five and six figure honoraria for so eloquently preaching what the industrial-militarists want the politically powerful to hear? I don't know if Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, or any of them sleep well at night but if they do, then I'm pretty sure that they consider the light of democracy to be confined to a copper statue in the harbor of New York. I'm cynical enough to believe that the movers and shakers of any political movement are savvy enough to not swallow their own potions and particularly so when it makes so much money for the people who back them.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
When your profits and dividends (not to mention hedge funds) rise to such a hefty degree, you don't care too much what happens if the servants you hired suffer loss of face. After all, you'll take care of them financially later on.

I do believe some of them were motivated more by belief than money, statistically there would have to be. Organizing a political movement takes True Believers willing to go so far as to swallow a few political cyanide pills for the cause of your children's trust funds.

The sad part is we'll only discover the true motives long afterwards when the memoirs of old age are written to clear the conscience. Until then your guess is as good as mine.

Maybe they're more self-deceived than you think.
 

D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
788
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
161
Did you mean MI5?


I wouldn't describe him as being naive as so many knowledgeable persons, such as Dick Cheney, helped to formulate his schemes. As for gains,
the use of Bush Co.'s scare tactics and lies ensured G.W.Bush's second election victory, justified attacking Iraq and the increase of his Executive powers. Also those who had investments in oil and companies such as Halliburton did well financially as a result of the war.

Taxpayers Lose, Halliburton Gains

let that be a lesson to us all. if you didn't realize tat oil was valuable then shame on you. Whagt do they always say? Invest in somthing you use. it your own fault. quit being a winy bitch!
 

diesel82

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Posts
94
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
153
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
i cant wait for the report to come out that shows that Osama Bin Bush orchestrated the whole September 11 thing. Then I want some country to ambush the USA, get him, and hang him.
 

Elmer Gantry

LPSG Legend
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Posts
47,213
Media
53
Likes
258,673
Points
518
Location
Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I actually don't think he "orchestrated" the 9/11 crimes. However, I think he wasn't all that sad about it as it handed them all the excuses they needed to move the US towards a more fascist state and to invade anywhere in the ME they felt the need to project US hegemony.

Win, win for the PNAC head cases.