or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Did the Bush administration claim Iraq was an imminent threat?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Did the Bush administration claim Iraq was an imminent threat? - Page 3

post #81 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Hey... I don't disagree with the idea that deposing Saddam was a good idea. But so would deposing the leaders of libya, cuba, various south american countries, north korea... france(hehe)... the sudan

It's a nice idea. Create democracy everywhere!

But pre-emptive war isn't the answer. Despite this justification.

Creating democracy is a long; culturally specific and economically driven endeavour. War is the weakest tool for its success.

Bingo!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #82 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
1. Read the preliminary Kay report?

Yes, just like I've read every report put out by all of the inspection teams. It is an embarrassment for the administration.
Quote:
2. The al-queda link is there. Unclassified intel is the only thing you see. None of us do.

No it isn't. All of the Iraq info is public thanks in large part to the work of the UN. The pentagon set up the Office of Special Plans to take this open source infromation, primarily from the UN, and make a case. 99.999% of the intel was open source. The intelligence on Iraq is the greatest example of Open Source Intel, or OSINT. Even in normal operation 95% of intelligence sources used by the CIA are Open Source. As I said, I can provide a huge reading list for you on contemporary Intelligence operations, methods and agencies if you would like, but please don't come on here pretending you know something you so clearly have never studied.
Quote:
3. England stands behind the Intel on the yellowcake.

England does not. Only certain individuals in the British government claimed that they had other intelligence, which they clearly did not, as pointed out by everyone from the IAEA to US intel analysts. Furthermore, with regard to Niger, every individual step each scrap of intel took has been traced, and it is now well known that it is completely and totally physically impossible for Iraq to have obtained uranium in the way British accusation claimed.
Quote:
4. There are countless reports on how the Iraqis are welcoming all the help. Get real.


Quote:
5. They do and overtime that will pay off, but the bush adminb does not want to destablise a budding democracy by burdening it with huge debt. They don't really even have any kind of economy there. You can thank Saddam for that. A bank loans you money based on your ability to repay. That country is in shambles and most of it has nothing to do with this current war. So many things need to be rebuilt. There is no real ability for them to pay it back now.

I looked at your web page, and it's clear you have not studied any of these subjects. You are simply making inferences based on your limited and uninformed beliefs about scraps of info that periodically hit your eyes and ears.
Quote:
My experience has been that anyone that starts their argument with the word "Neoconservative" or "ulta left wing" is usually just a brainless partisan anyway. You have set yourself up as Uber Lefty.

Really? Have you read The City and Man? Have you read any of Irving Kristol? Do you know anything about Wohlstetter? Do you know who Thrasymacus was and why it's so revolutionary to say he was the real voice of the author?

NO. You don't! So you are wholly and totally unqualified to talk about anything regarding the neoconservative movement in american politics. I bet you haven't even read one paper put out by PNAC, while I, for one, have read every one I've been able to track down and have the entire site saved on a drive! Get a clue!
Quote:
By the way, since there is formal definition of 'Neoconservative' explain in what your definition of the word is.

You have a lot to learn.
post #83 of 299
Well, now I see that you are scholarly and I am so inadequate. Who was I to think that I could ever match minds with you. You have read so many books and you are so smart. I do not understand why you don't work for the UN or something the world would be such a better place with such a smart person to help.

RIGHT

I really could care less about any neo-conservitive or neo-(insert title here) movement. So, don't bother quoting any thing to enlighten me.

You are pretty full of yourself, I can see that anyway. Can I call officially call you "Mr. Fancy Philosopher Pants"?

So what you are saying is that the more books you read the smarter and more correct your thinking is. (by the way, you say you read my website and from that you get what books I have read? I am not sure how you assume anything from my website other than that I am qualified to work on your computer. You truly are talented...) Do you think that throwing around book titles and quotes makes you more intelligent? There are so many books and so many authors, one could easily find a book to back up just about any viewpoint, crazy or not. Titles and quotes only impress people who think titles and quotes are impressive.

So, you need books to tell you right from wrong and truth from lies. I think most of us pretty much knew all that from at least 6 or so.

You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed. I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.

Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.

You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.

My two cents...
post #84 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Blah, blah, blah

Oh. Poor you. You made claims about things you don't know anything about and someone called you out on it. Poor you...

Quote:
You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed.

WTF are you even talking about? Are you just hitting random keys or are you actually going to discuss what I've actually said, as opposed to what you imagine I've said.
Quote:
I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.

What is this? A mental vomit? Coherence much?
Quote:
Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.

And this has to do with neoconservativism how? You are aware that I was dealing with the direct and most important elements in neoconservative theory, aren't you. Oh yeah, you aren't. Because you don't know anything about it.

Oh, and nice job coming up with a quote that doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Quote:
You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.

Actually, it's the neoconservatives that are philosophy junkies. Not me. I know a whole lot about it and have studied it for a long time, but find it boring. Me, I'm interested in computers, art, music, information gathering and dissemination, foreign policy, biking, good food, travelling...
Quote:
My two cents...

I'd say it's worth less than that.
post #85 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, now I see that you are scholarly and I am so inadequate. Who was I to think that I could ever match minds with you. You have read so many books and you are so smart. I do not understand why you don't work for the UN or something the world would be such a better place with such a smart person to help.

RIGHT

I really could care less about any neo-conservitive or neo-(insert title here) movement. So, don't bother quoting any thing to enlighten me.

You are pretty full of yourself, I can see that anyway. Can I call officially call you "Mr. Fancy Philosopher Pants"?

So what you are saying is that the more books you read the smarter and more correct your thinking is. (by the way, you say you read my website and from that you get what books I have read? I am not sure how you assume anything from my website other than that I am qualified to work on your computer. You truly are talented...) Do you think that throwing around book titles and quotes makes you more intelligent? There are so many books and so many authors, one could easily find a book to back up just about any viewpoint, crazy or not. Titles and quotes only impress people who think titles and quotes are impressive.

So, you need books to tell you right from wrong and truth from lies. I think most of us pretty much knew all that from at least 6 or so.

You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed. I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.

Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.

You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.

My two cents...


Here, here!

Only, even with all his supposed read'n, he's really no intellectual. Not by a long shot. He's just a sad, angry old man.
post #86 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by aapl
Here, here!

Only, even with all his supposed read'n, he's really no intellectual. Not by a long shot. He's just a sad, angry old man.



Look. Mika thinks the reason he has no sense is because he's a little kid. How cute.
post #87 of 299
I see you typing away you next rant there nipplesXXX. You think you could hurry it up? I've got places to be.
post #88 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I see you typing away you next rant there nipplesXXX. You think you could hurry it up? I've got places to be.

Go then, spread the good word.
post #89 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I see you typing away you next rant there nipplesXXX. You think you could hurry it up? I've got places to be.

You seem to know a lot about fertilization. You should go into mushroom farming. i think that would suit you.

Once again, from my limited experience, those who profess and protest too much are full of something.

You seem to want everyone to know how smart you are. That is what's really important to you, right? That everyone know how book-smart you are? You seem like you are pretty intelligent, misguided, but intelligent.

I have read a lot of books and quite frankly I am ashamed that I wasted so much time when I should have just formed my own thoughts and views based on what I can observe myself.

Research is good, and I'm glad you did some, a lot, or whatever, but assuming that yours is the only viewpoint is just silly. You come across like you have researched all the angles of the geo-political soup that we live in, and yet you are in lock step with the far left movement in this country. You are even citing their flawed talking points.

Maybe I did not follow the 15 second rule, but it seems to me that you are just trying to propagate the far left agenda behind some self-proclaimed knowledge. You come across very pompous and biased, not to mention the whole know it all thing.

Hey wait is this ... Howard Dean? Just joking.

Give us all a break.
post #90 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX

You seem to want everyone to know how smart you are. That is what's really important to you, right? That everyone know how book-smart you are? You seem like you are pretty intelligent, misguided, but intelligent.


You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with you attacking 'liberals' about neoconservatism when you clearly know nothing about it.

It really is too bad that your attempt to attack chu_bakka backfired on it. You could have been somebody.

It's pretty amusing how people like you try to act all bigshot attacking 'liberals' and as soon as your BS gets exposed you whine and cry about how 'giant must be a pompous jerk! boo hoo!' because I actually bother to learn about things before forming an opinion. Grow up.

BTW: Frames were never cool.
post #91 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with you attacking 'liberals' about neoconservatism when you clearly know nothing about it.

It really is too bad that your attempt to attack chu_bakka backfired on it. You could have been somebody.

It's pretty amusing how people like you try to act all bigshot attacking 'liberals' and as soon as your BS gets exposed you whine and cry about how 'giant must be a pompous jerk! boo hoo!' because I actually bother to learn about things before forming an opinion. Grow up.

BTW: Frames were never cool.

What's really funny is that I did not attack anyone, I was merely defending the current president from your dishonest accusations and innuendoes . I simply put forth the fact that you come across as far left and I don't think that I mentioned the word liberal. As far as neoconservitism, I did not bring that up, you did, when you stated that POTUS and gang are neoconservitives. I asked you to define what your meaning of the word was. The word itself is widely misunderstood and has been used incorrectly in recent history.

This last post really unmasks your flawed tactics. I am neither defending or promoting one party or the other, for I am not affiliated with any political party. So please do not impute my motives. It will simply show your true colors.

I feel, as in life, there is room for both conservative and liberal viewpoints. One balances the other. I am married and have three children. I can put on a clinic in liberal vs. conservative give and take, as applies to dealing with kids and making a marriage last.

Your obvious bias only hinders your ability to appear reasonable and balanced. You will need that if you wish to win reasonable and balanced people over to your cause.

Oh, and the whole "you don't get it" thing is a result of a weak argument. Give me something reasonable to chew on and I may "get it". And I really like the snide comment about my website.

lefty note to self: "when argument is weak belittle your opponent." And I think frames are moderately neato and needed sometimes.
post #92 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Go then, spread the good word.

The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.
post #93 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.

Actually he's just well read.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #94 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.

That has nothing to do with whether or not he knows what he's talking about.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #95 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Max:

Maybe the american public doesn't make "granular" distinctions between terrorists, but they should, and as a matter of policy the United States must...

Your arguments seem to consist of citing the odd bit of inconclusive data to butress the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but failing that, you fall back on the notion that it doesn't really matter, an evil Muslim is an evil Muslim. After all, if we are engaged in a global war of cultures, why get hung up on a little thing like culpability?

And this is why: America's response to the threat of terrorism must reamain proportionate, targeted, and just, or we will become the global equivalant (if we haven't already) of the frightened National Guardsman in Tikrit, spraying automatic weapon fire in a 360 degree circle because he thought he heard a shot...

The result? Dead civilians, another family filled with rage and hatred for the United States and all it stands for. Not "freedom". Not "democracy". The wanton exercise of disproportionate power...

I made the point that terrorism is a strategy not because I don't think it dangerous, but because declaring "war" on it is absurd on the face of it...we can no more win a "war" on terrorism than we could win a war on hatred.

You would solve this problem by ascribing terror to transnational coalition of Islamic jihadists to which you attribute the capacities and motives of a more convential enemy, such as the Soviet Union or facist Germany. This is convenient for your argument, since it allows you to coopt the rhetoric of those struggles (appeasement is a proven failure, the dsitinction between Iraq and, well, some other terrorist outfit is of no more importance than the difference between Japan and Germany)...

This is the same self serving lie that made the cold war such a disaster for the "domino" states unlucky enough to serve as a battleground, overt or clandestine, for "freedom" vs. "tyrany". More importantly, it is a lie that can only lead to repeated "preemptive" attacks on countries within which the difference between military and civilian targets are impossible establish, since the "enemy" is any person or child who is willing to do violence to the US or her interests...

In other words, your world view requires the US to become a terrorist state in order to combat terrorism. Since the enemy is somehow simultaneously mighty, organized, diffuse and fluid, we have no choice but to set aside all standards of international relations and rules of engagement and wallop the bejezus out of anything tthat moves. After all, our very existence is threatened, so who could bame us?


And the answer to that question is: the next generation of terrorists.

Addabox:

Thanks for advancing the discussion beyond the he said/she said to one of policy & principles.

One of the difficulties of dealing with widely diverse ideological viewpoints are there are implicit assumptions (stereotypes) made about an opponents line of argument, which prompts an inaccurate stock response. I think it might be helpful to first clarify my particular views:

To me, there is/was extensive evidence of links (or associations if you prefer) between Saddam Hussein and several terrorists and groups, some of it pretty well known when it comes to anti-Israeli organizations. However, there is almost no credible evidence, to my mind, of Saddam and al Qaeda coordinating or assisting one another in the attack of 9-11. And there has been some, perhaps more, murky links (associations) between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Usually the dialog gets derailed at this point, because some (like Giant) assume the argument is a defense brief - that if one cannot conclusively prove both the extent and nature of the links, the argument has ended (Giant: case closed). Why the left adopts this narrow legalistic view is deserving of its own thread, but for ME it is the starting point to discuss the correct foreign policy goals and strategy based on what we DO KNOW.

So I start with several assumptions. First, that American foreign policy should serve our national interest, which may include, but is never limited to humanitarian and moral goals. Second, in the game of nations there is are no world policemen, no enforceable courts of law, no agreed upon body of laws that protect us, and no moral system that will achieve justice. In other words, the world is not ruled by the consent of the governed and protected by world public safety departments and courts.

In this vigilante environment (some are democracies, more are not), if one wants to fight the local gang, or the Mafia, then one best do it with natural allies (other democracies) but if necessary, do it alone.

So in my world view, politically Islamo-facist terrorism represents many different gangs of the same underworld. Yes, a few are ideologically opposite one another (Baathist and al Qaeda), but all of them are shaped and inspired by some combination of Isalamic culture, Pan Arabist imperialism, and fierce ethno-religious identity. Most importantly to us, they are also united in their long standing hated the West in general, and the U.S. and Israel in particular.

Examine the history of Muslim based terrorism, among the alphabet soup of organizations does one find a love the west, or a respect for democracy, or are there natural allies for west among their families? True, with some we can have a truce (for a time), others may occasionally serve our interest, but in the long run, after 9-11 this is not security.

In my world view we should treat the gangs of Islamic terrorist world as criminals to be contained or eliminated, not because they are always overt allies with one another, but because they already view us as their enemies and are already fighting that war. In my world view our national interest is not to torment ourselves over which gang is culpable for the latest atrocity, but to let all the gangs know that their actions, collectively, are inhumane and will be punished; and to hold any nation that harbors or supports them as accountable.

I understand your concern over proportionality and targeting nothing is to be gained by wantonly killing the innocent or unnecessarily alienating our friends. However, one should not confuse the wisdom of our tactics, or the moral parameters of our strategy, with the justice of our cause.

Was Iraq the second best place to start to defend our national security interests (the first being Afghanistan) well, I dont know. Terrorism was but one of a constellation of Iraqi concerns which, in hindsight, seem less pressing. I doubt our wisdom in invading Iraq at this time, but I have little doubt of its Justice. Perhaps Saddam should not have been the second on the list, but we will have one less Frank Nitti and Al Capone will come soon enough.

Let me close by noting the long-standing political anxiety of many liberals; that to defend oneself will only bring more recrimination from other Muslims, that the "world will become a West Bank".

"9/11" already demonstrated that the United States is a West Bank. You can either pursue the spiritless half measures prior to 9-11 or you can pro-actively fight back. If, in the very unlikely event such defense galvanizes every Muslim nation their people to oppose us so be it, we are already at war.
post #96 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Thanks for advancing the discussion beyond the he said/she said to one of policy & principles.

Because we know you need it after saying such things as:

Quote:
I never cease to marvel at the selective memory of the politically passionate, even regarding the events that occurred less than a year ago. Have extensively discussed and debated these issues with many of my peers over the last year, and participated in numerious posts, it astounds me that how quickly axe grinding revisionism can recast history, namely that Bush lied, that he "told us the threat was imminent.

Sigh, wrong! He didnt. Nor did his administration, nor his mainstream supporters. What he and his supporters did say that it was very uncertain just how close Saddam was to developing and/manufacturing WMD,



Nice try at acting like such a little angel.
Quote:
yadda, yadda, yadda

You know, all you end up saying here is that the US needs to defend itself. Big fvcking news. How about you actually say something meaningful.

At least you only attack me in this post, rather than just simply ranting against 'liberals' as you typically do.
Quote:
and to hold any nation that harbors or supports them as accountable.

So you better get the Bush admin to start rather than invading Iraq.
Quote:
If, in the very unlikely event such defense galvanizes every Muslim nation their people to oppose us so be it, we are already at war.

Now, let me get this straight. First, you pretend to be excited to talk 'policy' rather than he said/she said just because you he said/she said attack on everyone bit you in the ass, and then you promote a ;policy,' if you can call it that, that says it's OK to piss off the most violent region on the globe. As they say, you really are a piece of work.

Oh, and these long-ass posts of yours don't substitute for content. In other words, quantity is no substitute for quality.
post #97 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Actually he's just well read.

I like to learn. So kill me, right?

Anyway, the intelligent folks here on AO, like you and midwinter, certainly should get thanks for some of those sources. Where would I be without some of the insight of your posts?
post #98 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.

Maybe, if you consider saying all women have penises is an opinion. In my world, that would be considered a falsehood. I guess that makes me fascist.

And what you see as 'pompous' really comes down to me being sick and tired of these rants consisting of attacks on 'liberals' sprinkled with flat-out falsehoods. And the second you avoid accountability by pretending that actually researching the topic is a bad thing, that's the second you lose all chance of getting leeway.

Here's a quick hint: the Iraq war was sold on falsehoods. Now, an interesting and realistic discussion would focus on what this was a result of. How much of it was due to the false translation of cold war nuclear strategy onto a complex world? How much of it has simply for the benefit of Israel? How much of it was financially motivated? How much of it was as a proving ground for Marshall's strategic theories? How much of it was to project US power? How much of it was to assert US dominance?

These are the questions that actually matter, and these are the ones being discussed in the US government and among the people that advise it. Meanwhile, the imbeciles falling for the Noble Lies rant about 'liberals.' Classic.
post #99 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Check out Bush's Cincinnati address, which was the one where he detailed the threat for the american people:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3711.htm

He claimed it was urgent

Actually, he said:
Quote:
... Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time...

As for the claim that the the admin said the threat was "imminent" in his State of the Union President Bush said:
Quote:
... Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option...

In other words, by saying we should act before the threat became imminent (that's what the whole idea of preemptive action is all about) he clearly wasn't claiming the threat was imminent.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #100 of 299
Your great intellectual mind is leaving out some things because you are so biased. You are so blinded by it you can't even see it.

Perhaps this government for any number of reasons decided to act to protect this country. Perhaps classified intel paints a more ominous picture that you or I know.

You imply that current intel that this government has is open source. So, if what you claim is true, then it would be pretty safe to say that terrorists and rogue states would also be able to access that information. This would totally compromise any 'war on terror'. Once again, I need not read any book to see that your theory is flawed. You may have studied countless books telling you that intel is open source for all to see, but logic would dictate otherwise. I will still stand by the fact that you do not know what current intel that this government has and it is presumptuous of you to assume that you do. The word 'classified' means just that. You do not have access to that info. So please don't imply that you do. It just makes you appear silly.

By jumping directly to accusing everyone of lying, you reveal your political bias. You can't possibly know all that you claim to know, you can't speak for every party involved. If you did you would not be on some apple lover forum site posting classified information. Once again, no books needed to reach that conclusion.

I did not say that research is bad, I just think you should consider both sides. As I said before, there in enough info from enough sources to come to a balanced conclusion. But if you only ingest, as you seem to have, the view from from only one radical side of the political spectrum, you come across that way. And you do.

Once again you are trying to imply that I am attacking liberals, I am not, just your insane statements.

My two cents,,,,
post #101 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You imply that current intel that this government has is open source.

Man, NaplesX must be new!

Anyway, you're probably getting an edge from some people because you're covering some ground that we've covered before. That means when you say something like what I've just quoted, some of us have already argued this to death.

Not that we don't want new ideas in discussions, we do. This one happens to be old hat though.

I'll guess that someone's going to show up and say that 95% of all the intel our government uses is open source. And I believe they're right.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #102 of 299
Thought you'd appreciate a post I "found"


Quote:
Originally posted by Giant Ego
Man, you dont know what youre talking about. Have you read Jacqueline Suzanne? Have you done any research on the intel of retail? Do you know who Foghorn Leghorn is? IVE researched IT!

Come back when your as smart as me, better yet, go share your thoughts with your mommy Dame Edna. By the way, do you know just how smart I AM? Ive studied philosophy, tons of it, but I find it boring you know, dealing with abstract reasoning and concepts. NOT ME, I comb through minutia and trivialities from arcane intel and call that foreign policy thinking hurts too much.

By the way, did I tell you how smart I am?

.
post #103 of 299
I believe if this administration had any hard evidence of anything in Iraq... It would have been LEAKED already. They declassify info on a whim and we know that they'll uncover operatives for political gain.

You're basing your trust on having a adminstration that actually KNOWS something...

They have been using unvetted intel to make their case... dragging the CIA through the mud... they ignore the cia analysts and believe all sources at face value... regardless what their motivations might be.

According to the White House... the buck stops at the CIA.



Stupid Quote Saturday from the Hamster

""[A]s you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." Bush Jr, Washington, D.C., Oct. 28, 2003

"It's been a little overwhelming. We're getting phone calls from all over the state, ringing off the hook. Everyone is telling me that I'm the only moderate, electable candidate." Katherine Harris.

"For a $75 donation, the DNC will send you a smear book. That's pretty dignified, isn't it? Why don't they buy Alan Colmes' new book, which doesn't smear anyone but put forth the liberal cause?" Bill O'Reilly referring to the DNC offering Al Franken's book.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #104 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Actually, he said:As for the claim that the the admin said the threat was "imminent" in his State of the Union President Bush said:In other words, by saying we should act before the threat became imminent (that's what the whole idea of preemptive action is all about) he clearly wasn't claiming the threat was imminent.

It looks like someone's not up to speed. I guess I'll have to post this again:

So, The TPM results are in. Here are the good parts:

Perle:

Quote:
And the only point I want to make is that as long as Saddam is there, with everything we know about Saddam, as long as he possesses the weapons that we know he possesses, there is a threat, and I believe it's imminent because he could choose at any time to take an action we all very much hope he won't take.

And Bush in the speech I linked to twice in this thread:

Quote:
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Ari:

Quote:
Question: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

Fleischer: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all.

Bush:

Quote:
We are united in our determination to confront this urgent threat to America.

Rummy:

Quote:
But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Check it all out here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...02.html#002175

As for Bush's much contended paragraph in the State of the Union, Josh points this out:

But what the president is saying here is that in the context of rogue states in alliance with terrorists well never have the sort of advance warning which used to count as the evidence of an imminent threat. And thus what we had in Iraq actually amounted to an imminent threat. In fact, the administration anticipated this line of reasoning in its National Security Strategy document when it said We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of todays adversaries.
post #105 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Man, NaplesX must be new!

No kidding.

Naples, the real work in intelligence is in analysis. As Bunge pointed out, 95% of sources are completely open, from studies to government documents to academic research and news reports (everything from very small localized publications to international ones). The real work is to organize it in such a way that it reveals what is really going on. Cooperative Research, for instance, collects every news story on a given subject and organizes it into either and outline or a timeline. By doing it this way, patterns start to emerge.

But this is just one small part of it. The two undercover analysts I grew up around, both are high profile. One was, during the cold war, the senior writer on Russia for one of the major newspapers. He used his job to gain access, and most of what he learned was published at the time. The other one is an academic who works as a sort of analyst on call. He teaches at all of the major universities in a freelance capacity. Both are good examples of how info is a) completely open and b) needs background knowledge to be analyzed.

Now, the wonderful thing about Iraq is that we knew everything and everything was publicly published by last year at this time. The average citizen with access to a major library could find out more about Iraq's weapons programs and government structure than the US military knows about its own weapons program. And this is not at all an exaggeration, as evidenced by the discovery of an undocumented stash of biological agents found at Fort Detrick. Iraq was an totally open book.

I think it was Brzezinski that pointed out recently how appalling it is that the US military couldn't point to individual Iraqi units and brigades and say that they have such and such weapon. During the cold war, we dealt with a much more closed adversary, yet we knew exactly what bombers would take exactly how many minutes to deploy, etc. In fact, it was the Rand folks, a couple of whom are the Godfathers of US defense policy under the Bush admin, that, through long statistical analyses, changed the entire dialogue. We knew everything we needed to about russian capabilities, the real work was done in working out strategies that dealt with it.

Iraq, on the other hand, not only wasn't a threat, but ALL of the info was not just open, but readily available. The only reason there was a belief that we didn't know something was because Wolfowitz wrongly transplanted Wohlstetter's theories (basically, forming all actions around worst case scenarios, good for cold war, not good for a complex, multi-node world) onto Iraq. Other people with more sense knew this wasn't accurate, but had their own motivations for going along. Military heads questioned it and spoke out about it, but Rummy is, well, Rummy, and we all know how that turns out.

Rummy created the Office of Special Plans with the expressed purpose of digging up dirt on Iraq. Where did they get their info? Open sources (almost exclusively the UN with some CIA analyses) and lying defectors. We can actually trace every admin claim back to open sources in fine detail, with the exception of the obvious bullshit (underground cities and such) from the defectors.

With the Information Revolution, public access was increased 1000 fold, in ways you wouldn't normally realize. Information sharing between information organizations has skyrocketed even in the past 5 years. The stats from my work are extraordinary. Hell, we were looking over stats from just the past year and in some sectors they have doubled.

Iraq has been a totally open book for everyone. One person I know well who has gone there frequently for political reasons (before and now during the war) joked how at the hotels everybody is spying on everyone. Cameras are hardly hidden. This is not unusual for these global hot spots.

Anyway, maybe you've learned something here. I've got to go eat some lunch.
post #106 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It looks like someone's not up to speed...

I quoted from the speech you linked.
Quote:
... As for Bush's much contended paragraph in the State of the Union...

The president said what he said and he specifically didn't say the threat was imminent.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #107 of 299
whether he stated the word IMMINENT is irrelevant.

He wanted to go to war by May. And made many arguments to not wait longer than that. Most of those arguments have proven to be weak if not false.

He's being given flack because he can't defend his reasoning.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #108 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I quoted from the speech you linked.

And this is also from the speech: Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

It's pretty farking clear, bud.
Quote:
The president said what he said and he specifically didn't say the threat was imminent.

Actually, it's pretty clear:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.


He's saying we won't know until the strike, meaning any day now or a year from now.

But, like chu_bakka said, it doesn't matter if he used the actual word. He did call it urgent, every argument made about it said it was urgent and Perle used the 'imminent.'
post #109 of 299
Harumph again.

Iraq = Terrorist = Imminent Threat.

Raise the terrah alert; lower the terrah alert.

Raise the terrah alert; lower the terrah alert.

Presto! Instant imminent threat in the eyes of the populace.

Look at the quote again:

Quote:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.

Look closely at that second sentence, which states pretty clearly that all terrorist threats are imminent ones. More importantly, note that B includes the word "tyrant," with which he had effectively associated SH over several speeches. "Terrorists and tyrants" is more than alliteration. It's a way of associating 9/11 with SH to get the public to draw the conclusion that SH = terrorism, which, like 9/11, is an imminent threat.

Again: that quote does NOT say that Iraq is NOT an imminent threat. It *seems* to say that they are not an imminent threat, but its logic in fact says the opposite: the quote very, very clearly says that the danger to America from terrorists and tyrannical dictators is always imminent. Ergo, Iraq = terrorist = imminent threat.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #110 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
whether he stated the word IMMINENT is irrelevant.

He wanted to go to war by May. And made many arguments to not wait longer than that. Most of those arguments have proven to be weak if not false.

He's being given flack because he can't defend his reasoning.

I think Iraq was a brilliant move on the part of bush and his advisers. But like any such daring and risky move, it has the potential to turn very sour. I don't think this where we are now, far from it. I really believe, things in Iraq are going as smoothly as can be expected, and as soon as Saddam is found and killed it's going to be game over for the Bathist insurgency. But I have a feeling Saddam is directing things from Syria - another bathist terrorist state.

Iraq has opened a new frontier in the a relationship with Saudia which is the real snake head in the fight against terrorism. But as long as Saudi oil has the world by the balls, there's little prospect for any real progress. And this is where Iraq comes in. Iraq has the 2nd largest world oil reserve next to Saudia, and as soon as the Iraqi oil machine comes online, things will begin to move on the Saudi front. (I.e. the velvet gloves will come off). The tone coming out of the White House is already starting to reflects this. (See my link of Bush's speech). If some here were not so fanatically partisan, and took a moment to reflect on the larger picture, they would appreciate the brilliance of taking on Iraq - AS PART OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM.
post #111 of 299
I'd laugh if that wasn't all so very sad.

I'm sure the families of the dead soldiers think it's brilliant too.

Once again aapl shows faith in the neoconservative roll of the dice.

Hundreds dead. Thousands injured. Billions spent.

Yup. Brilliant. The middle east is really shaking in it's shoes now.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #112 of 299
chu_bakka,

That's the difference between you and I. (And I might add between Liberals and Conservatives). You are not only a pessimist but as you and others of your political ilk very much attests to, this negative psychology carries over to your world view. You have no faith in people, and therefore everything you do and say is reflective of this innate pessimism.
post #113 of 299
wow.

I disagree. Obviously.

You're in denial. We're realistic.

So Bush is sending out a message to the world of hope and love?

Or... if we discipline you enough you'll come to see it our way...?

Or... you're a potential threat you could be next?

Sure the adminstration was optimistic about their plan BEFORE the war.

When was the last time they mentioned Afghanistan and Osama?
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #114 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It looks like someone's not up to speed. I guess I'll have to post this again:

So, The TPM results are in. Here are the good parts:

Perle:



And Bush in the speech I linked to twice in this thread:



Ari:



Bush:



Rummy:



Check it all out here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...02.html#002175

As for Bush's much contended paragraph in the State of the Union, Josh points this out:

But what the president is saying here is that in the context of rogue states in alliance with terrorists well never have the sort of advance warning which used to count as the evidence of an imminent threat. And thus what we had in Iraq actually amounted to an imminent threat. In fact, the administration anticipated this line of reasoning in its National Security Strategy document when it said We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of todays adversaries.

Giant, I was hoping that we might move it along to more interesting aspects - and now that I just saw your last post, perhaps we are. However, given your nasty comments about "ass biting", I think appropriate to offer a final comment:

Proposition: It has been asserted that Bush justified the war by claiming that Iraq was an imminent threat and that Bush lied about it (this is usually accompanied by the wailing and hair-pulling of the accusers). The importance of this assertion lies NOT as an off-hand comment, or as vague allusions, it as an ASSERTION that the President based his major policy justification for war on the claim of Iraq as an imminent threat.

Analysis: To date, we have been offered 5 disparate quotes, from 5 unspecified events and sources. Luckily, this evidence has been already been analyzed and debunked by a number of sources. In fact, its been dealt with in the FIRST post and its links. For those curious, including Giant, I offer the following definitive analysis:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index....h_archive.html

I would urge you to examine not only the specific linked items, but the related links embedded in the articles. In particular, Andrew Sullivan has several weeks of running commentary both before and after the linked commentary date and spinsanity does an excellent and balanced analysis.

You will find the following:

1)\tThe extensive number of Bushs justifications for the war in Iraq were contained in administration policy statements and major addresses but none of them included the words imminent threat, and very few came even close. As the links demonstrate, the few off-hand statement examples provided by you are either trivial or out-of-context (e.g. Aris two one word affirmations of yes to a reporters question, 5 months apart) hardly the underpinnings of a major policy platform. For anyone actively debating the issue at the time, including the democratic critics, their was acknowledgement that that while Iraq was a growing and unforeseeable threat, requiring long-deferred urgent resolution, it was not IMMINENT threat - yet

2)\tThe obsessive-compulsive Left sleuthing for Bushs needle in a haystack comment tell us more about their pathology than it does Bushs intentions. In fact, this issue has more recently evolved to what the Left thinks Bush implied, rather than what was actually said (which is why the press, e.g. the NYT, is rapidly dropping the imminent adjective).

3)\tThis is a case wherein some of the politicos would rather mischaracterize Bushs justifications, rather than deal with them head-on. Those who pull their hair and wildly claim that they were sold on a justification that Bush did not make, exaggerate their victimization for effect even when their own record demonstrates their previous, and contrary, perceptions.

4)\tLast, the Bush administrations case for the war was varied, but any comprehensive reading would include the following as the major elements: Iraq had not complied with the U.N. resolutions and would not do so; logic and intel suggested that they were hiding either WMD R&D or perhaps had an active WMD production program; that Saddam was supporting terrorists, perhaps even al Qaeda; that he had imperial designs on the region, and that the current political climate, he could not be contained; and that he was an inhumane and brutal dictator that ought to be eradicated. In light of all this, and cost and difficulty of mobilizing for war every time Saddam became obstructionist, meant to Bush, that it was time for action.

On the eve of War, Bush made it clear that deferring action to let another round of inspections (four to six months) was unacceptable, and certainly not without agreement from France that action would be taken if inspections were a failure.

Lets debate those issues, not the feigned theatrics.
post #115 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by aapl
chu_bakka,

That's the difference between you and I. (And I might add between Liberals and Conservatives). You are not only a pessimist but as you and others of your political ilk very much attests to, this negative psychology carries over to your world view. You have no faith in people, and therefore everything you do and say is reflective of this innate pessimism.

It's "between you and me." See, you learn something new every day.
post #116 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka

.
.
When was the last time they mentioned Afghanistan and Osama?

Yeah,..
When was the last you heard from Osama and Afghanistan.
post #117 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
It's "between you and me." See, you learn something new every day.

Shawn, I have little faith - in your grammar skills. LOL
post #118 of 299
Chu, Giant, and others are set in their thinking, duh. Giant obviously feels superior to anyone and doubly if you disagree with him. Now that is ok, I suppose. The thing that I would hope is that anyone reading this thread or any other info on this hot topic would read it and analize it from a nuetral vantage point. I like to ask myself "what makes sense?" or "Is this reasonable?"

As far as intel that is not classified, fine I will concede and really never argued that there is intel out there that enyone can grab. Is there a lot? Yes, do you need to analize it? Yes. Why? Because it is mundane info that on it's face means very little.

For example: some military vehicles leave am Iraqi military fixture and arive somewhere else. Now I am sure that that kind of thing happened on a daily if not hourly basis. Ask any Iraqi in that area. All that info is intel. Thare is tons of intel like that. Intercepted communications and the like will gather other intel. The analists put this all together and determine that in that movement there was possibly something of interest. Thus the 95% figure of open source intel you are talking about would make sense.

You seem to dismiss that 5% that is left. That is where the real meat is. That is the information that people get killed over and wars are started with.

This makes sense to me.

If GWB and company are in a conspiracy than Bill Clinton and company were in it to. He ordered Iraq be bombed for the same reasons years ago.

I would chose to beleive if two presidents from two ends of the political spectrum have taken similar action, I would have to say Iraq was a threat. The same intel was used before, are you complaining about that? No, because you are a partison parroting partison blather.

Once again this makes sense to me.
post #119 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You seem to dismiss that 5% that is left. That is where the real meat is. That is the information that people get killed over and wars are started with.

This makes sense to me.

I think Giant's point is that open-source intelligence is the way things work now, and that analyzing open sources of information reveals patterns that make old-style forms of intelligence gathering less and less necessary.

It makes sense to you, of course, because you're more comfortable with the old pre-internet way of thinking about intelligence.

I suggest you thicken your skin a little, get over his tone and general demeanor, and take a good, honest look at what he's saying. As I said before, just because you don't like his tone doesn't mean he's wrong. At all.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #120 of 299
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as intel that is not classified, fine I will concede and really never argued that there is intel out there that enyone can grab. Is there a lot? Yes, do you need to analize it? Yes. Why? Because it is mundane info that on it's face means very little.
.....

You seem to dismiss that 5% that is left. That is where the real meat is. That is the information that people get killed over and wars are started with.

This is just classic. "That is where the real meat is." Oh reeeaaaallly? How could you possibly know one way or the other when you can't even name 7 collection disciplines? Oh yeah, inferences based on limited knowledge.

You know, I don't understand people like this. If someone is telling me about spanish politics during the inquisition, I don't argue with them and I don't feel insecure for not knowing about it. We all choose to spend our time learning different things, so why pretend you know about things you don't?

Anyway, I'm going to go see Alien on the big screen. See ya...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Did the Bush administration claim Iraq was an imminent threat?