earllogjam
Expert Member
Geo. Trenet?
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.
Geo. Trenet?
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....
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.![]()
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.
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.
I thought he was supposed to be dumb.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wasn't that 'worse still' because it marked a defeat of the main goal of the invasion?
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.
Maybe they're more self-deceived than you think.
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
Were Cheney et al so naive to believe that PNAC's funding came from altruistic sources with no economic goal supreme in mind?
This almost sounds like you have a source.
(Or maybe it's just a hunch ... which would be fine too.)
Do you have a source?
I'm curious, Jace.