Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About It

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
And I can't believe there are people out there that actually believe the President was able to intentinally and willfully alter intelligence, not only from the CIA, but from several other foreign agencies as well without anyone knowing about it. AMAZING!

Look I don't want to argue with you because it's pointless. You are entitled to your views, I believe they are wrong. It's that simple. You feel the same way about my views and obviously very strongly.
The CIA doesn't present the information to Congress. There have been ex-CIA heads coming out within the past few years admitting a lot of stuff about this war that you probably wouldn't believe too.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
53,515
17,983
1,743
The CIA doesn't present the information to Congress. There have been ex-CIA heads coming out within the past few years admitting a lot of stuff about this war that you probably wouldn't believe too.
Want to fill us all in on those and the sources of the information. And I would like complete quotes and not quotes taken out of context.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
Want to fill us all in on those and the sources of the information. And I would like complete quotes and not quotes taken out of context.
Here's just a few I found quickly with just the beginning of the articles in the quotes and the entire article following:

In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081.html
WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html

(CNN) -- The Bush administration disregarded the expertise of the intelligence community, politicized the intelligence process and used unrepresentative data in making the case for war, a former CIA senior analyst alleged.

In an article published on Friday in the journal Foreign Affairs, Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, called the relationship between U.S. intelligence and policymaking "broken."

"In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made," Pillar wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/10/iraq.intelligence/index.html
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,768
20,602
1,743
Same goes for Ahmadinejad. If he's so evil and is building nuclear weapons and we're not about to go to war with Iran for some other BS reason, then why the hell aren't we just taking him into custody while he's in freaking New York? We'd rather capture him on his own land and cause thousands of deaths and spend billions blowing crap up instead? Great logic!
Okay, you just lost any credibility whatsoever with this argument. Normally, I stay out of these things because I'm somewhere in the middle on it anyway so both sides end up hating me. This one was just completely reveals how utterly out there you are, though.

Are you really suggesting that the Presidential Administration doesn't really believe that Iran is a legitimate nuclear threat because we didn't blatantly violate a treaty with the U.N. allowing visas and diplomatic immunity to envoys on U.N. business?

Are you really suggesting that he should have put every single one of our diplomats in every single country at risk by violating several centuries of understandings and agreements regarding diplomatic immunity to prove the President of Iran is a legitimate threat to peace?

Nikita Khrushchev was allowed to bang his shoe on his table disrupting the U.N. in New York City in the height of the Cold War....less than two years before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Castro has been several times in the past.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that our failure to violate long-standing diplomatic immunity principles and agreements is evidence that Bush doesn't view Ahmadinejad as a legitimate nuclear threat and if any war action occurs it's all a sham?

My bet is that you'd be howling about "Cowboy diplomacy" if Bush actually had done anything of the sort. My bet is if he had done something like that you'd be accusing him of doing it to accelerate and ensure the war against Iran rather than to address the problem without actually having a war.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,768
20,602
1,743
And again our Justification for telling the leader of a sovereign Nation to leave? WMD? Not so. Don't say 9/11 or you'll look like an idiot, Don't say "to stop terrorism", again you'll look stupid, Don't say to give the Iraqi people freedom as that was the excuse two years after the fact and then we have to go to war with about half the nations of the world. Burma anyone? N. Korea? Saudi Arabia? So again the ustification besides Bush wanting to make himself look non-wimpish?
How about violation of the Gulf War I cease fire between Iraq and the U.S., (not the U.N.) requiring Saddam to allow inspectors into his country on a continuing basis?

Furthermore, why would someone look stupid for suggesting that it might be a good thing to stop and eliminate a dictator that was paying rewards to terrorist suicide bombers that were killing our allies in Israel, attempting to fund such suicide bombers in the U.S., and HAD funded an attempt to assassinate a President of the United States?

Reasonable minds can disagree on whether there was sufficient moral justification to do what was done. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it was good policy to do so.

You don't do your credibility any good by taking the tact that you have over credible, sensible, rational argument.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,768
20,602
1,743
OKCpoke, your a bit over the edge... take your meds and calm down. The name calling has shown you are beyond reasonable debate at this point. Breathe, try not to stroke out. Even though one less Neaderthal in this world is a good thing, one less Cowboy fan is not.
Kaje would do well to follow the same advice.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
Okay, you just lost any credibility whatsoever with this argument. Normally, I stay out of these things because I'm somewhere in the middle on it anyway so both sides end up hating me. This one was just completely reveals how utterly out there you are, though.

Are you really suggesting that the Presidential Administration doesn't really believe that Iran is a legitimate nuclear threat because we didn't blatantly violate a treaty with the U.N. allowing visas and diplomatic immunity to envoys on U.N. business?

Are you really suggesting that he should have put every single one of our diplomats in every single country at risk by violating several centuries of understandings and agreements regarding diplomatic immunity to prove the President of Iran is a legitimate threat to peace?

Nikita Khrushchev was allowed to bang his shoe on his table disrupting the U.N. in New York City in the height of the Cold War....less than two years before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Castro has been several times in the past.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that our failure to violate long-standing diplomatic immunity principles and agreements is evidence that Bush doesn't view Ahmadinejad as a legitimate nuclear threat and if any war action occurs it's all a sham?

My bet is that you'd be howling about "Cowboy diplomacy" if Bush actually had done anything of the sort. My bet is if he had done something like that you'd be accusing him of doing it to accelerate and ensure the war against Iran rather than to address the problem without actually having a war.
And you can go back to my argument with bleedorange regarding things that the US does that goes against the UN. OK, maybe not capture and put the burden on the US by imprisoning the guy, but what about some shooter in the grassy knowl that just happens to get a good shot at him? Oops.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,768
20,602
1,743
And you can go back to my argument with bleedorange regarding things that the US does that goes against the UN. OK, maybe not capture and put the burden on the US by imprisoning the guy, but what about some shooter in the grassy knowl that just happens to get a good shot at him? Oops.
Really....so you're arguing that Bush should AGAIN violate U.N. protocols (accepting for a moment he has in the past....something that is not absolutely clear or certain) to prove the President of Iran is a threat.

To place every single diplomat in every single country at risk by violating CENTURIES old principles in order to prove to you he views him as a threat.

That, or assassinate him.

Your argument against Bush is that him not violating international law (again, in your book) proves he doesn't really believe that Iran is a threat. Is that really what you're arguing. If it is, it reveals more about you than it does about Bush.

Yes....the fact that Bush didn't do ANY of those is definitely rational and coherent proof and argument that he doesn't view the President of Iran as a valid nuclear threat to the safety of the U.S. Excellent, excellent points you make there. :rolleyes::x
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
Really....so you're arguing that Bush should AGAIN violate U.N. protocols (accepting for a moment he has in the past....something that is not absolutely clear or certain) to prove the President of Iran is a threat.

To place every single diplomat in every single country at risk by violating CENTURIES old principles in order to prove to you he views him as a threat.

That, or assassinate him.

Yes....the fact that Bush didn't do ANY of those is definitely rational and coherent proof and argument that he doesn't view the President of Iran as a valid nuclear threat to the safety of the U.S. Excellent, excellent points you make there. :rolleyes::x
OK forget that out of left field statement I made about capturing him. It shouldn't have even been made because it has nothing to do with the topic. It was a hypothetical anyways. I certainly wouldn't want him to do it. I don't want to go to war with Iran. I'm all for milking out the sanctions to take care of business until the country dwindles to nothing. I'm not sure what you find so bizarre about assassinating him though. Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last that our country has done that.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
67
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
How about violation of the Gulf War I cease fire between Iraq and the U.S., (not the U.N.) requiring Saddam to allow inspectors into his country on a continuing basis?

Furthermore, why would someone look stupid for suggesting that it might be a good thing to stop and eliminate a dictator that was paying rewards to terrorist suicide bombers that were killing our allies in Israel, attempting to fund such suicide bombers in the U.S., and HAD funded an attempt to assassinate a President of the United States?

Reasonable minds can disagree on whether there was sufficient moral justification to do what was done. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it was good policy to do so.

You don't do your credibility any good by taking the tact that you have over credible, sensible, rational argument.
You mean as opposed to the Saudi royal family which contributed funding to the same Charity that paid those monies to the suicide bomber families? Actually holding a Telethon on State sponsored TV which raised over one million dollars for the cause? Or let's hit closer to home 9/11 where two checks from the wife of the Saudi Arabian ambassador were deposited directly into the bank account of two of the 9/11 pilots? So we invade Iraq to depose Saddam but the Royal House of Saud dines regularly in Crawford?

You mention Saddam attempting to have Bush 41 killed. We go after him 13 years later? Not exactly solid justification. However, we did the same thing when we encouraged open revolt in Iraq in the years following Desert Storm. What would OUR reaction be if a foreign country tried to incite open civil war in the US? None of this was even mentioned as the reason for the war. Please remember we violated several UN decrees when we invaded. We expect Saddam to listen to the UN yet we did not ourselves? You mention honoring an agreement. We expect Iraq to honor an agreement but we ourselves pick and choose which ones to honor? Was Saddam not honoring the agreement reason enough to do what we did? In my opinion not at all. My tact on this is more than reasonable. I see no reason for thousands of young men and women to come home in body bags for these reasons. for tens of thousands to be horribly maimed. I see no reason for this administration to say it will veto spending 35 billion over 5 years to provide health coverage to CHILDREN, while asking for an ADDITIONAL 50 billion THIS YEAR to spend in IRAQ. so our own children can do without but we can give Haliburton and other contractors billions. This should make any reasonable person lividly angry. Especially when it was avoidable. Bush should be held accountable.


Credibility is NOT something the Bush administration has very much of it comes to foreign policy.
 
Aug 3, 2006
315
0
1,566
S. of OKC - N. of Norman
Same goes for Ahmadinejad. If he's so evil and is building nuclear weapons and we're not about to go to war with Iran for some other BS reason, then why the hell aren't we just taking him into custody while he's in freaking New York? We'd rather capture him on his own land and cause thousands of deaths and spend billions blowing crap up instead? Great logic!
Because he was traveling on diplomatic passport! Castro was allowed to talk at the UN. Even though the U.S. had no diplomatic relations with Cuba. We must follow the rules when it comes to the treatment of diplomats, while they are in our country. Hell the state dept. had to even provide additional security for him. :guns:
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,768
20,602
1,743
An interesting argument that we must logically depose all dictatorial governments immediately before we can morally deal with any singular one. Not particularly compelling, but....interesting.

The argument that we "violated several UN decrees when we went in" is an interpretation not firmly established except in the mind of those that disagree with the War in Iraq. Were we sanctioned? Were there any resolutions? Did the resolutions that had been entered explicitly require further approval before the US resorted to military action? Like many things, reasonable, informed individuals disagree on this point as well.

Furthermore, the Gulf War I cease fire was between the US and Iraq....not the UN. We needed no authorization at all from the UN to reestablish hostilities for violations of its provisions. Those provisions included the use of US and UN inspectors in Iraq which everyone agrees Saddam violated. I've said reasonable minds can disagree whether the war in Iraq was justified under any argument. I haven't even argued that any of the Bush administrations stated justifications were legitimate.

You seem to be essentially arguing that anyone that disagrees with your basic sentiment that Bush is one step (if that) from a war criminal is a moron.

Which one of those responses is more reasonable and tactful, really? You're not arguing with someone that has been uncritical of Bush at this point. You are, however, arguing with someone that understands life and politics is rarely as simple and black and white as you're insisting.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,768
20,602
1,743
OK forget that out of left field statement I made about capturing him. It shouldn't have even been made because it has nothing to do with the topic. It was a hypothetical anyways. I certainly wouldn't want him to do it. I don't want to go to war with Iran. I'm all for milking out the sanctions to take care of business until the country dwindles to nothing. I'm not sure what you find so bizarre about assassinating him though. Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last that our country has done that.
What I find bizarre is YOUR insistence that Bush DIDN'T assassinate him is evidence that he isn't really a THREAT.

I'm sorry, I can't simply forget it....such an incredibly specious and irrational argument undeniably and inescapably brings your credibility with regards to such topics in question.
 

PCpoke83

Master of Puppets
Mar 3, 2004
3,839
1,987
1,743
Oklahoma City, OK
www.facebook.com
What I find bizarre is YOUR insistence that Bush DIDN'T assassinate him is evidence that he isn't really a THREAT.

I'm sorry, I can't simply forget it....such an incredibly specious and irrational argument undeniably and inescapably bring your credibility with regards to such topics in question.
There is a reason he is on my ignore list. I only wish it filtered threads started by him.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
67
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
An interesting argument that we must logically depose all dictatorial governments immediately before we can morally deal with any singular one. Not particularly compelling, but....interesting.

The argument that we "violated several UN decrees when we went in" is an interpretation not firmly established except in the mind of those that disagree with the War in Iraq. Were we sanctioned? Were there any resolutions? Did the resolutions that had been entered explicitly require further approval before the US resorted to military action? Like many things, reasonable, informed individuals disagree on this point as well.

Furthermore, the Gulf War I cease fire was between the US and Iraq....not the UN. We needed no authorization at all from the UN to reestablish hostilities for violations of its provisions. Those provisions included the use of US and UN inspectors in Iraq which everyone agrees Saddam violated. I've said reasonable minds can disagree whether the war in Iraq was justified under any argument. I haven't even argued that any of the Bush administrations stated justifications were legitimate.

You seem to be essentially arguing that anyone that disagrees with your basic sentiment that Bush is one step (if that) from a war criminal is a moron.

Which one of those responses is more reasonable and tactful, really? You're not arguing with someone that has been uncritical of Bush at this point. You are, however, arguing with someone that understands life and politics is rarely as simple and black and white as you're insisting.
So your saying inciting a revolt, that resulted in tens of thousands of anti-Saddam iraqi's to be killed, is with in the terms of a cease fire? It's justified to go to war because Iraq refused to let inspectors in after a decade of searches. But not justified for them to refuse after we tried to start a civil war? I am not in any way defending Saddam, he was a murderous slime. Who deserved what he got. As to me saying anyone who disagrees with me is a moron,,, No I was responding only to one individual who was attacking anyone who disagreed with Him. WMD proven false, Terror proven false, so what reason was the real reason? people can fervently support the war, but giving VALID reasons for it is difficult to do. I support our troops but not this War that was launched for false reasons. As I said earlier we did not let Saddam go into exile because then we could not control who replaced him. thus could not control the oil resources. That my friend is the ONLY reason we have an interest in Iraq. Without it's oil we would not care one iota what happens there.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,439
3,518
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
I believe oil was the major factor, control the politics control the oil. But there were other purposes fulfilled. I am sure there will be an American base there way pass our lifetimes. Iraq was an enemy of saudi arabia and I know they have significant pull with both political parties. Let's not forget what saddam did to Israel in the first gulf war, and the Israelis have a long memory as well as significant pull. So we were going to war no matter what the reasons were. It's just this time the administration got caught spinning the product thinking we would buy it.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,768
20,602
1,743
So your saying inciting a revolt, that resulted in tens of thousands of anti-Saddam iraqi's to be killed, is with in the terms of a cease fire? It's justified to go to war because Iraq refused to let inspectors in after a decade of searches. But not justified for them to refuse after we tried to start a civil war?
Please quit making strawman arguments and attacking them rather than the arguments I'm actually making. It's incredibly irritating, and not very effective.

I am not in any way defending Saddam, he was a murderous slime. Who deserved what he got. As to me saying anyone who disagrees with me is a moron,,, No I was responding only to one individual who was attacking anyone who disagreed with Him.
Actually, your original tirade was in direct response to HanesOnU who said, "So we should let someone like Saddaam just have a billion dollars? We said he could leave, he did not do that."

How, exactly is that an an attack on someone who disagreed with him. It seems to me that it's you that is on the attack. It is certainly consistent with the nature of your usual responses. You assert that anyone that disagrees with you is simply woefully uninformed, a Bush lover to the end against all reason, or stupid or duped by the Bushies.

WMD proven false, Terror proven false, so what reason was the real reason? people can fervently support the war, but giving VALID reasons for it is difficult to do.
It hasn't been "proven false" that reasonable intelligence indicated WMD was a real threat, merely that it turns out they weren't there when we got there. Foreign governments believed, based upon their own intelligence, he likely had a continuing WMD program. U.S. Intelligence certainly wasn't clear that he DIDN'T have a continuing program. We KNOW with out a doubt he had a program following Gulf War 1 and the ensuing years. We KNOW he continued to resist inspection (which is contrary to the argument that he has nothing to hide).
Using 20/20 hindsight doesn't definitively make that an invalid basis for what was done.

The WOT not proven false except in your opinion by your twisted argument that if the US takes action to root out one source of terrorism it must immediately do so at the same time against every source. That's not the way the real world works. Iraq was clearly a state sponsor of terrorist activity against the U.S. and its allies. To deny that is to deny reality. Reasonable minds can disagree whether that, in and of itself was appropriate moral justification for Gulf War 2.

AS I've said before, I believe reasonable minds can differ on whether the war was justified. You, apparently continue to think anybody that disagrees with you simply doesn't know what they're talking about because you've proven them false, false, false,.....when you really haven't done that very effectively at all.

I support our troops but not this War that was launched for false reasons. As I said earlier we did not let Saddam go into exile because then we could not control who replaced him. thus could not control the oil resources. That my friend is the ONLY reason we have an interest in Iraq. Without it's oil we would not care one iota what happens there.
I'd like to see some evidence that we would not have had considerable influence...near total control....in who replaced them. We still would have had the threat of military engagement if it was a Baathist successor. This is more of you pre-supposing facts not in existence. Furthermore, as has been pointed out quite effectively, Kaje's "quote" of the conditions left out at least one important condition. This was about more than just a million dollars.

As far as oil....of course it is a strategic interest in all of this....a valid one too. You're argument that we would not care one iota what happens there and is the only reason we have an interest, however, completely ignores the geopolitical realities of the region and the strategic value of having another potential future launching base and sphere of influence in the area.