Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-21-2013, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,268,822 times
Reputation: 7990

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
It has been asked how Americans came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was in league with terrorists, had WMDs, and was somehow behind 9/11.

This is how:

President Bush 2003 State of the Union Address:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications,and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of AlQaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and oher plans—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” (President Bush, State of the Union, January 28, 2003)

This snippet includes:

1. A false connection to terrorists,

2. A false connection to 9/11,

3. The spectre of mushroom clouds,

4. A false assertion the Saddam Hussein had WMDs.

I'm surprised his pants didn't spontaneously combust after that load of crap.
OK, that SOU is a good find, but then you go and spoil it by overplaying your hand. That was just one more bit of bad, or at least questionable intel. Colin Powell repeated the same thing in his UN presentation.
Ex-Officials Dispute Iraq Tie to Al Qaeda | Fox News

So you get (2) correct. (1) is incorrect, as I have shown, there were connections to terrorists. (3)was just speculation, albeit reasonable speculation. As Warren Buffet has said, if things proceed along the current path, it's a question of when, not if, Islamic terrorists will deploy nukes. (4) has already been thoroughly debunked in this thread. Again, Saddam's own generals believed that he had WMD right up to the invasion.

You get 1 out of 4 right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2013, 02:49 PM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,034,666 times
Reputation: 8526
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
OK, that SOU is a good find, but then you go and spoil it by overplaying your hand. That was just one more bit of bad, or at least questionable intel. Colin Powell repeated the same thing in his UN presentation.
Ex-Officials Dispute Iraq Tie to Al Qaeda | Fox News

So you get (2) correct. (1) is incorrect, as I have shown, there were connections to terrorists. (3)was just speculation, albeit reasonable speculation. As Warren Buffet has said, if things proceed along the current path, it's a question of when, not if, Islamic terrorists will deploy nukes. (4) has already been thoroughly debunked in this thread. Again, Saddam's own generals believed that he had WMD right up to the invasion.

You get 1 out of 4 right.

Hussein did not have ties to 9/11, the WMDs in Iraq (that's the reference) were taken out by Operation Desert Fox, the mushroom clouds--WMDs was a spectre to get the American people behind this invasion at the outset. Bush would not have had the support later on. Nothing was found Wutitiz, the chem and bio weapons were unuseable.

The government sent troops into Iraq based upon "evidence" that was either cherry picked, or outright fabricated. I believed, as a lot of people did, that our invasion of Iraq was justified. A friend of mine sent me the link to the carneigie report, ironically to justify our invasion, and it opened my eyes, big time.

If the criteria for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam Hussein was a "bad man" then why just Iraq, why not Cuba? Fidel Castro is just as much a monster as Hussein was.

Afghanistan had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq, and it was pretty much ignored because all of our efforts was in Iraq.

We are going to need to realize we have to allow a country to determine it's own destiny, and stop nation-building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2013, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,268,822 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
... the WMDs in Iraq (that's the reference) were taken out by Operation Desert Fox, the mushroom clouds--WMDs was a spectre to get the American people behind this invasion at the outset...
The government send troops into Iraq based upon "evidence" that was either cherry picked, or outright fabricated. I believed, as a lot of people did, that our invasion of Iraq was justified...
We are going to need to realize we have to allow a country to determine it's own destiny, and stop nation-building.
I have posted this previously; here it is again:

Even Saddam's own senior officers believed that he still had WMD, right up to the invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra II
Saddam told his military to "to hold the coalition for eight days and leave the rest to him," recalled Abdullah al-Mullah Huwaysh, the minister of military industrialization. The mysterious order came to some as a relief to some of Saddam's military officers. Despite Saddam's earlier revelations that Iraq was bereft of WMD, they concluded that Saddam must have a secret supply of WMD after all, and that the defense of Iraq would not depend entirely on their overmatched, ill-motivated troops.
(from Cobra II, by NYT reporter Michael Gordon, and Gen Bernard Trainor, p. 190).

Yes, we know now that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD (btw how do you know that it was Desert Fox that did it?) The point is that we nor Bush knew it at the time. Again, your own link from the Carnegie Foundation confirms it too.

I can agree that there was cherry picking going on. As I posted before, the mid east CIA chief Paul Pillar talked about the tendency of analysts to provide what they thought the admin wanted to hear. I don't see any fabrication. What was fabricated, and who fabricated it?

I can agree with your last statement about nation-building. After Afghanistan and Iraq, hopefully it will be a long time before we try that again. Interestingly, W Bush campaigned in 2000 strongly against the idea of nation-building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2013, 05:28 PM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,446,063 times
Reputation: 1066
It's been proven already Saddam harbored terrorists. He aided terrorists as well. Saddam met with Al Qaeda. This is fact and there's no use arguing otherwise....we even named some of them here in this thread.

But Bush never said Iraq had a connection to 911. Plus, the 911 Commission and Robb-Silberman Report said Saddam had met with AlQaeda but they had no Operational Connection (their wording).

We also know that the intelligence given to Bush was even more alarming than what was given to Congress. So even with less alarming information available to them, we had Democrats like Kerry, Gore, Biden, Kennedy, Hillary, Rockefeller, and Byrd making impassioned speeches in favor of war.

Then even AFTER no WMD were found, Bill Clinton stuck up for Bush on Larry King Live saying he knew for a FACT that Saddam had WMD when he left office and his former intelligence people were saying he still did.


Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2013, 05:40 PM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,446,063 times
Reputation: 1066
Nation building.....

I don't see where there was any choice!

Post 911 I don't know of anyone in America that didn't want to get Al Qaeda. That required toppling the Taliban. Remember, Bush gave them the choice of handing over Bin Laden or face war. THEY chose war.

Ditto in Iraq.....once a bipartisan vote in Congress authorized war, it only stands to reason that ousting Saddam would necessitate rebuilding a government there (unless you'd prefer to occupy it forever).

PS: the USA used to have entire brigades of people who's expertise it was to administer interim governments. Those were completely gutted during the Carter administration.

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 07:32 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,034,666 times
Reputation: 8526
Quote:

I don't see where there was any choice!
Yes, there was a choice, don't invade Iraq, and concentrate on Afghanistan, where Bin Laden actually was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 08:27 AM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,446,063 times
Reputation: 1066
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Yes, there was a choice, don't invade Iraq, and concentrate on Afghanistan, where Bin Laden actually was.
We did. The Taliban was ousted in like a month.

Saddam was also given the very simple choice to allow inspectors have untethered access to his WMD program.

And as has been already proven numerous times, the intelligence agencies of every nation on the planet, the UN, and a majority of Democrats (including one you will probably vote for in 2016) all thought they were there.

Rather tough to say Bush was the only one "lying" (if that's the way you phrase it) when so many others believed the same damned thing.......unless your agenda is partisan only.

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 02:41 PM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,034,666 times
Reputation: 8526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
We did. The Taliban was ousted in like a month.

Saddam was also given the very simple choice to allow inspectors have untethered access to his WMD program.

And as has been already proven numerous times, the intelligence agencies of every nation on the planet, the UN, and a majority of Democrats (including one you will probably vote for in 2016) all thought they were there.

Rather tough to say Bush was the only one "lying" (if that's the way you phrase it) when so many others believed the same damned thing.......unless your agenda is partisan only.

Posted with TapaTalk
We did. The Taliban was ousted in like a month.

No, we didn't, not on the scale of Iraq.

Saddam was also given the very simple choice to allow inspectors have untethered access to his WMD program.

Saddam had no WMDs, they were gone, the chemical and bio weapons were so old as to be unuseable.

Don't you find it the least bit odd that NO WMDs were found?

And as has been already proven numerous times, the intelligence agencies of every nation on the planet, the UN, and a majority of Democrats (including one you will probably vote for in 2016) all thought they were there.

There was also intell that said there were no WMDs. It's been discussed already multiple times that congress relied on the same flawed or misrepresented evidence we did.

And I don't vote along any party lines, I'm an Indi. I didn't vote for Obama.

Rather tough to say Bush was the only one "lying" (if that's the way you phrase it) when so many others believed the same damned thing

It wasn't just GWB, there was also Rumsfeld and Cheney. And, repeating myself, Congress relied on the same flawed or misrepresented evidence we did.


.......unless your agenda is partisan only.

And my agenda is over 4,000 dead troops in a war that should have never happened.

Last edited by carterstamp; 08-22-2013 at 02:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 02:48 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,824,713 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
40+ percent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 for years. Dd that idea just pop into their heads uninvited?
You didnt answer the question.. 99% of all folks thought the earth was flat at one point, and how many people believe in god...

According to your argument, god must exist then because so many believe its true..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2013, 02:49 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,824,713 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Yes, there was a choice, don't invade Iraq, and concentrate on Afghanistan, where Bin Laden actually was.
You know where Bin Laden was?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top