|
Iraq
Dec 12, 2010 15:53:56 GMT -5
Post by dolphie on Dec 12, 2010 15:53:56 GMT -5
I thought there was a thread for Iraq - yet could not re-locate it, thus here we go....
|
|
|
Iraq
Dec 12, 2010 16:03:26 GMT -5
Post by dolphie on Dec 12, 2010 16:03:26 GMT -5
What you know today can affect what you know and do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday. Condoleezza Rice Schools Katie Couric on Why U.S. Invaded Iraq By Noel Sheppard | December 12, 2010 | 11:10 ... Well, that's a pretty good rationale. (Laughter.) But let me -- let me go back to the premise, the question, in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, what was the -- it's true that you can only -- that what you know today can affect what you know and do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday. So the premise that somehow, because weapons of mass destruction were not found in stockpiles, the rationale for the war was flawed leaves out the fact that at the time that we decided to go to war, we thought there were weapons of mass destruction. So let's stipulate that. Now, we didn't worry about weapons of mass destruction particularly in the hands of Russians. The Russians had the hundred thousand -- a hundred times the weapons capability of Saddam Hussein. The problem was that Saddam Hussein had taken the world to war in really destructive wars twice, Iran and the Gulf War in '91; dragged us into conflict again in '98, as President Clinton had responded to the problem there; violated repeatedly Security Council resolutions. The efforts that we were making to keep him in his box, whether it was oil-for-food or the -- or trying to keep his air forces on the ground through flying no-fly zones -- he was shooting at our aircraft every day, he still refused to acknowledge that Kuwait was an independent country, and so on and so on. This was the most dangerous tyrant in the middle of the Middle East, and he had repeatedly flaunted (sic) the efforts of the international community to control him after '91. And so I think there is an argument that in those circumstances, getting Saddam -- getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a very good thing. ...... ... are you 100 percent sure when you're dealing with an opaque, secretive country in which there have been no inspections for years? No, you're not 100 percent sure. But the preponderance of intelligence analysis -- the preponderance of intelligence analysis from around the world was that he had had weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had used weapons of mass destruction. That was not a theoretical proposition. ... Against the Kurds, against the Shia and against the Iranians. So he'd used them several times. And the preponderance of intelligence was that he was reconstituting or had actually, in the intelligence estimate, reconstituted his biological and chemical capabilities. There was some debate about how far he had gotten on the nuclear front, some saying that with foreign help it could be a year; others saying it would be several years. So no, it's simply not the case that there was, if you're in a position of decision-making, evidence to say that it was likely that he did not have weapons of mass destruction. Now, what we found is that he was indeed breaking out of the constraints that had been put there -- we all know the scandal of oil-for-food -- that he was not as far along in that reconstitution as the intelligence had suggested. But the idea that somehow Saddam Hussein was not pursuing or was never going to pursue weapons of mass destruction, I think, is as misplaced as an argument that he had fully reconstituted. Read more: newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/12/12/condoleezza-rice-schools-katie-couric-iraq-and-wmd#ixzz17vvC0SaPRICE: Katie, I'm going to repeat: What you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not...I can't speculate on what I would have thought if I had known. I think it's not a fruitful exercise. We knew what we knew, and we made the decisions based on that intelligence and that knowledge. Now I still believe that even in the absence of finding weapons of mass destruction, the world and the Middle East are much better places without Saddam Hussein. And you always can know what happened as a result of what you did. What you can't know is what would have happened had you not done it. The Iraq that we're talking about today, our debate about Iraq today -- our concerns about Iraq today are, of course, about continuing violence. But the conversation is whether Shias, Sunnis, Kurds can within their new democratic institutions form the first multi-confessional democracy in the Arab world. That's a really interesting discussion, and it's different than a discussion that we might have been having about whether or not the nuclear competition between Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq is a greater danger than having taken Saddam Hussein out. Read more: newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/12/12/condoleezza-rice-schools-katie-couric-iraq-and-wmd#ixzz17vwb1Lbb
|
|
|
Iraq
Dec 12, 2010 20:46:32 GMT -5
Post by Turk on Dec 12, 2010 20:46:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Iraq
Dec 12, 2010 21:41:56 GMT -5
Post by dolphie on Dec 12, 2010 21:41:56 GMT -5
too late
|
|
|
Iraq
Dec 12, 2010 22:50:10 GMT -5
Post by jdredd on Dec 12, 2010 22:50:10 GMT -5
I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you but I'm reluctant to comment on Condi's statements because frankly her credibility, along with GW's, Cheney's, Powell's, Blair's, and a dozen other neocon's is zero with me.
|
|
|
Iraq
Dec 12, 2010 22:58:06 GMT -5
Post by jdredd on Dec 12, 2010 22:58:06 GMT -5
www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html"LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]" Does not sound like an administration "duped" by the intelligence agencies, does it?
|
|
|
Iraq
Dec 13, 2010 3:35:44 GMT -5
Post by Tired in CV on Dec 13, 2010 3:35:44 GMT -5
www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html"LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]" Does not sound like an administration "duped" by the intelligence agencies, does it? A majority of the supporting evidence for that article is from the published news media, NOT official documentation. It has already been documented that the media had been trying to influence policy through their publications. It also sounds like a few people are trying to cover their own butts by making the case against VP Cheney and his close associates. This gets supported by the media attack on them from the beginning. Those who made some errors in Intelligence are trying to get a free ride. Let us not forget that our own Intelligence community were not the only ones who had stated the issue of Saddam possessing WMD. The "nuke" issue was never much of an issue other than he had "intent" and that he had tried to obtain fresher "cake". The idea that he could possibly be within one year of a nuke was not something that came from Cheney! It was a very flawed analysis that was put out there by some Intelligence agency. Yes, there are people trying to cover their backsides in the Intelligence community. A dependence on foriegn intelligence or a lack of collecting real facts within Iraq may have led some individuals to pad their reports to confirm action to Saddams intent. A believable story indeed. Lazy at best. I like to believe that the majority of our Intelligence community are not like that. Again, that article is shows nothing more than the media's interpretation of what they want to believe. Even if it is a timeline. Where are the hard documents, the FACTS!
|
|
|
Iraq
Dec 13, 2010 5:04:07 GMT -5
Post by jdredd on Dec 13, 2010 5:04:07 GMT -5
www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html"LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]" Does not sound like an administration "duped" by the intelligence agencies, does it? A majority of the supporting evidence for that article is from the published news media, NOT official documentation. It has already been documented that the media had been trying to influence policy through their publications. It also sounds like a few people are trying to cover their own butts by making the case against VP Cheney and his close associates. This gets supported by the media attack on them from the beginning. Those who made some errors in Intelligence are trying to get a free ride. Let us not forget that our own Intelligence community were not the only ones who had stated the issue of Saddam possessing WMD. The "nuke" issue was never much of an issue other than he had "intent" and that he had tried to obtain fresher "cake". The idea that he could possibly be within one year of a nuke was not something that came from Cheney! It was a very flawed analysis that was put out there by some Intelligence agency. Yes, there are people trying to cover their backsides in the Intelligence community. A dependence on foriegn intelligence or a lack of collecting real facts within Iraq may have led some individuals to pad their reports to confirm action to Saddams intent. A believable story indeed. Lazy at best. I like to believe that the majority of our Intelligence community are not like that. Again, that article is shows nothing more than the media's interpretation of what they want to believe. Even if it is a timeline. Where are the hard documents, the FACTS! What makes you think we'll ever get the true facts? Everyone will spin to fit their agenda. I know what I believe.
|
|
|
Iraq
Dec 14, 2010 1:36:25 GMT -5
Post by jdredd on Dec 14, 2010 1:36:25 GMT -5
atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/iraq-christians-on-the-run/?ref=world"QOSH, Iraq — A new wave of Iraqi Christians has fled to northern Iraq or abroad amid a campaign of violence against them and growing fear that the country’s security forces are unable or, more ominously, unwilling to protect them. " I'd love to be able to ask these people whether they thought they were better off with Saddam gone. Why have half the Christians left Iraq since the American invasion and are still leaving?
|
|
|
Iraq
Dec 14, 2010 2:00:49 GMT -5
Post by Tired in CV on Dec 14, 2010 2:00:49 GMT -5
atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/iraq-christians-on-the-run/?ref=world"QOSH, Iraq — A new wave of Iraqi Christians has fled to northern Iraq or abroad amid a campaign of violence against them and growing fear that the country’s security forces are unable or, more ominously, unwilling to protect them. " I'd love to be able to ask these people whether they thought they were better off with Saddam gone. Why have half the Christians left Iraq since the American invasion and are still leaving? To your surprise, the Christians have been fleeing Iraq for years and years. Before the first war with Iraq from the coalition of forces. The Christians suffered a great deal from Saddam. His sons often targeted Christian women for their pleasures! That the Christians started having some security during the U.S. occupation encouraged many to stay and hope for change. It only goes to show that the radical elements are still in play (and have some power) as well, now that the U.S. forces are not actively supporting daily operations. If the government can't resolve that issue, then they are highly unlikely to resolve the issues between the other ethnic and religious factions either.
|
|
|
Iraq
Mar 19, 2023 14:16:41 GMT -5
Post by jdredd on Mar 19, 2023 14:16:41 GMT -5
Article in todays NYT: “in U.S-Led Iraq War, Iran Was the Big Winner”. Yes, it’s 20 years since Boy Georges’s invasion. How many trillions did we spend to accomplish what the Ayatollah fought a war from 1980 to 1988 to do: Overthrow Saddam. Why was it our job?
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 2, 2024 17:28:39 GMT -5
Post by jdredd on Feb 2, 2024 17:28:39 GMT -5
Couldn’t find an Iran thread so I’ll use this one. Looks like the U.S. has started its eye-for-eye bombing against alleged Iranian proxy targets. Will Iran take the bait and strike back? Then we can really escalate.
|
|
|
Iraq
Feb 8, 2024 18:15:09 GMT -5
Post by jdredd on Feb 8, 2024 18:15:09 GMT -5
Thirty-three years after Desert Storm and we are still taking out Iraqis we don’t like. Not that Iraqis can do anything about it. That is the definition of power IMHO: the ability to do something to someone who doesn’t have the ability to retaliate.
|
|