Illegitimate war = record deficit...again

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

Mad Mike, you've cerimoniously walked this road before and your sources always lead back to the CIA. The same CIA that gave Bush the intel go ahead because Saddam (slam dunk is the term) had stockpiles of WMDs. And from yellowcake to 2005, the CIAs intel has been listening to whispers in the dark at best thus far in the Middle East.

No. My source is the bi partizan 9/11 commission which reviewed the CIA reports, criticized them where they were wrong and quoted them when they felt that the CIA got it right.

Nice attempt to discredit the facts but you are simply wrong.

If you have any actual fact that prove anything I have said wrong post them. If not, the best thing you can do is sit back and learn.

[Brown 43]

You have to be naive to believe that Suddam didn't give money to any terrorist organization, especially Al-Q!

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Hooper

You're playing a game of semantics and I'm never going to win that.

To use your example -- your boss comes up to you at work and says "You gotta go. We can do it the easy way, have you resign -- it will look a little better for you that way -- or I can fire you." Either way, you lost your job because your boss didn't want you around.

I know I'm not going to make any headway with you -- you seem to believe that the Bush Administration was perfectly happy with Lindsey and he resigned just for the hell of it. That's your opinion -- and it's one I don't think even the most conservative posters on this board would agree with. I could be wrong, of course.

Peace.

You are misreading my opinion and intent with this entire debate.

I never said he wasnt forced out and I never even remotely claimed that the admin was happy with him.

I took exception to the statements that he was fired because he said how much the war would cost.

That is extremely misleading and false, call it like it is.

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

No. My source is the bi partizan 9/11 commission which reviewed the CIA reports, criticized them where they were wrong and quoted them when they felt that the CIA got it right.

Nice attempt to discredit the facts but you are simply wrong.

If you have any actual fact that prove anything I have said wrong post them. If not, the best thing you can do is sit back and learn.

You have not said anything wrong, it's the CIA's track record that's lacking. If the 9/11 commission is backing them fine, more power to them, and to you. It still doesn't dismiss the fact the CIA seems to believe everything they hear and pass it up to the administration as fact when it is later proven otherwise.

[seamus]

He did give money to the palestinian terrorists but nothing has been proven that he did give money to bin laden. He actually refused to do business with him when approached by bin laden.

[Hooper]

That's exactly why he was fired -- even the most conservative pundits don't bother denying that anymore -- but I know I'm not going to convince you of that. Gotta get back to work -- we'll just agree to disagree.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by Cskin

And all of those opposed to the war continue to forget the UN resolutions Iraq simply ignored...

the ones about disarming and disclosing/destroying his banned weapons.

They forget about the inspectors being thrown out of the country.

If they didn't have weapons, how could they "prove" that to a president who already decided that they were guilty?

Bush pulled the inspectors out of Iraq because they weren't finding anything, because there wasn't anything!

A little bit of selective memory there or reading from the Fox script.

:rolleyes:

[Brown 43]

Jackson, they had the inspector's rooms bugged, so they knew where they were going next! Do you need any other proof?

[Cskin]

Mad Mike, you've cerimoniously walked this road before and your sources always lead back to the CIA. The same CIA that gave Bush the intel go ahead because Saddam (slam dunk is the term) had stockpiles of WMDs. And from yellowcake to 2005, the CIAs intel has been listening to whispers in the dark at best thus far in the Middle East.

And you are conveniently forgetting the fact that the international community, including China... Russia... and the UN itself, held the belief that Hussein had reconstitued his weapons program.... hence the continued resolutions. Furthermore, it was the Checzs that also highlighted a possible meeting between Al-Qaeda and Iraqi officals.

Give up and fall on your sword.

[NoCalMike]

My problem isn't with Bush asking for another 80 billion, I understand war costs a lot of money, my main problem is his outright refusal to come up with any kind of list on how this money is being spent, and how it is being divided up. I also have a lot of fear and anger that just like the two other times, the majority of the money is going to defense contractors and their ripoff artists, rather then with the troops.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Cskin

And you are conveniently forgetting the fact that the international community, including China... Russia... and the UN itself, held the belief that Hussein had reconstitued his weapons program.... hence the continued resolutions. Furthermore, it was the Checzs that also highlighted a possible meeting between Al-Qaeda and Iraqi officals.

Give up and fall on your sword.

The left argued that Saddam was succesfully contained, and did not have the capacity to make WMDs even if he wanted to and planned to. We had plenty of air raids any time anything suspicious come up. The inspectors supported this theory as they were unable to find ANYTHING, then Bush & the Neo-Cons administration goes and pulls them out before they finish because his "Attack Iraq" plan was already in motion and nothing, especially the TRUTH was going to get in the way of it.

From the first day Bush uttered the word "Iraq" after 9/11, even in the slightest way, anyone with half a brain knew they were getting bombed, it was just a matter of when, and nothing was going to stop it. Everyone saw how many reasons Bush had to go through unsuccessfully in order to try and justify the war and beat the drums of war, and to try and sway the american people.

The Neo-Cons wanted Iraq attacked since 1998, it is documented in PNAC, there is even a website about this, with Bush's/Jeb's/Daddy's/Cheney's/Gingrich etc........signatures on it.

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by Cskin

And you are conveniently forgetting the fact that the international community, including China... Russia... and the UN itself, held the belief that Hussein had reconstitued his weapons program.... hence the continued resolutions. Furthermore, it was the Checzs that also highlighted a possible meeting between Al-Qaeda and Iraqi officals.

Give up and fall on your sword.

lol, and how many of these entities felt a military strike was the only option?

[Jay Master Jay]

Will we get lower oil prices from Iraq or cheaper drugs from Afgah in a few years??

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by seamus

He did give money to the palestinian terrorists but nothing has been proven that he did give money to bin laden. He actually refused to do business with him when approached by bin laden.

Wrong. He actually offered bin Laden sanctuary. :doh:

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

A perfect comparison Kevin, we went to war with Germany. We went to war with Iraq. The difference is that Iraq actually DID attack us on numerous occasions, though not on 9/11. The Germans did not bomb Pearl, yet we attacked them for their alliance with Japan.

Actually, no. Nazi Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Jay Master Jay

Will we get lower oil prices from Iraq or cheaper drugs from Afgah in a few years??

Well considering Afgan's herion and opium trade is higher now then it was before we attacked them, I'd say we should be getting our cheaper narcotics any day now. :cool:

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Predicto

Actually, no. Nazi Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor.

Well that and the fact that his scenario is bogus because Iraq doesn't have this imaginary alliance with Al Qaeda.

[seamus]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Wrong. He actually offered bin Laden sanctuary. :doh:

your right. either way this refutes the connection.

[Predicto]

I posed this before and I'm too lazy to reword it - so I just cut and pasted it. Sorry.

Summary - We are NOT in Iraq because of WMDs, or because of Saddam's connections to Al-Qaeda, or anything else that the administration will cop to. We are there because the neoconservatives believe they can impose democracy on the entire region at the barrel of a gun.

_________

This President's neoconservative advisors, particularly Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, have a theory about transforming the middle east by military means.

In their view, imposing regime change will ensure our economic dominance for decades and protect our only true friend in the region - Israel. Examine the policy papers of William Kristol's "Project for A New American Century" (a think tank where every one of these advisors were active members): the Project's policy papers lay it all out in detail. The dream is one of a benevolent American Empire across the world imposed by military force, a Pax Americana similar to Pax Romana of the Roman Empire.

Read the PNAC report for yourself, or google it to find a good summary from a source you trust. Much of it is about building up military spending, but the geopolitical aims of the project are set forth in detail. Warning - its very long.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/R...casDefenses.pdf

Here's a summary. It's also long.

http://www.gvtc.com/~mpingo/pnac2.html

Heck, Wolfowitz's writings echo this theme all the way back to his PhD thesis in the 1960s. Douglas Feith openly admits it. The neocons believe that the whole Middle East region may be transformed as we want it if we project enough American power there.

The blueprint begins by getting our troops into Iraq, so we can put pressure on Syria and Iran, protect our access to oil, etc. Unfortunately, because there is great resistance in this country to starting wars without more overt justification than the expansion of American power, the neocons needed palatable reasons to invade Iraq, reasons that the average American citizen would accept.

The reasons they jumped on were linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and invoking the spectre of another 9/11 from Saddam's "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Perle and Wolfowitz advocated the invasion of Iraq on September 12, before we had any idea who actually did those horrible acts.

I do not believe that the President and his advisors knew, without a doubt, that Iraq lacked any WMDs. In fact, I think they probably expected to find something there, a lot more than they did. But the evidence they had of anything tangible was very sketchy, and not very threatening, and they had to know that. And they had to sell it to us as a reason to go to war, so they puffed up the threat. Remember the non existent "yellow cake?"

Bottom line - The President and his advisors did not fear that any of Saddam's weapons were a threat to us - WMD's was the best excuse we had for invading, an invasion that we wanted to do for geopolitical reasons.

ps - Saddam was an *sshole and I'm glad he is gone, in the abstract. But I HATE being lied to by my own government.

[NoCalMike]

Bravo, Predicto. All this time I thought I was the only one struggling to get people to go check out PNAC.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by KevinthePRF

lol, and how many of these entities felt a military strike was the only option?

LOL is right. Take a list of nations opposed to the war and put it side by side with a list of nations which profited from the oil for food program or arms sales and what do you see? What a coincidence! they match! Who woulda thunk it? :doh:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html

Pumping Up Key Revenue Streams

Baghdad made little overall progress in lifting sanctions between December 1998 and November 2002, despite Russia’s pressure to include language in UNSCR 1284 that provided for the end of sanctions. The former Regime, however, was able to increase revenue substantially from several legitimate and illicit sources. Iraq started to receive the revenues of OFF in January 1997. Revenues from this program increased from $4.2 billion in 1997 to a peak of $17.87 billion in 2000 (see the Regime Finance and Procurement chapter).

According to his former science advisor, ‘Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa’adi, Saddam, by mid-to-late 2002, had concluded that sanctions had eroded to the point that it was inevitable they would be dropped.

The Regime also sought diplomatic support for the lifting or easing sanctions by tying other countries’ interests to Iraq’s through allocating contracts under the OFF program and entering into lucrative construction projects to be executed when sanctions were lifted. In addition, Iraq held conferences to recruit and cultivate “agents of influence” to build pressure for lifting sanctions.

Iraq negotiated a $40 billion agreement for Russian exploration of several oil fields over a 10-year period. Follow-on contracts called for the construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq. Performance would start upon the lifting of sanctions. Under OFF, 32 percent of the Iraqi contracts went to Russia. The Iraqis gave preferential treatment to Russian companies mainly to try to gain Russia’s support on the UN Security Council. The Russians, French, Ukrainians, and others succeeded in reducing the amount of OFF money Iraq paid to the UN Compensation Committee (for Gulf war reparations) from 30 to 25 percent thus adding significantly to Iraq’s income stream.

The Regime sought a favorable relationship with France because France was influential as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and was in a good position to help Iraq with lifting sanctions.

Iraq awarded short term contracts under OFF to companies around the world. As of June 2000, French companies had contracts totaling $1.78 billion.

‘Aziz personally awarded several individuals substantial oil allotments. All parties understood that resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift UN sanctions, or through opposition to American initiatives within the Security Council.

Gosh. You mean those nations may have had other motives for opposing the war? :doh:

Try reading something besides left wing propaganda.

[KevinthePRF]

Mad Mike I'm beginning to wonder if you work for the CIA. It seems to be your ONLY credible source you can point to support your opinions.

But besides that, so our motives were strictly humanitarian and for the security of our borders while the rest of the entire world had little more than corrupt motives in the matter. I just want to make sure I got you on record for that belief

[E-Dog Night]

Originally posted by Mad Mike

Nope. No links to terrorism in Iraq. It was an illegitimate war.

Just thought I'd point out a couple of things about that report that are ostensibly listed as proof that an Iraq/Al Qaeda link exists.

Brigadier General Vincent Brooks himself admitted in the article that you posted that the finding of these training camps "reinforces the likelihood" that there were "clear links with common interests". That's a stretch. It's pretty clear from the wording that he's not really sure about that, and there was no "smoking gun" that linked this camp with any particular terrorist camp. What they fond was simply a military training camp, which isn't so surprising, considering the country in which it was found was under attack.

This camp was found a year and a half after 9/11. I have no doubt that there are groups with terrorist ties in Iraq now. There's no proof that Iraq had any terrorist activity before we invaded, and certainly no evidence pre-9/11.

And let's just say for the sake of argument that there were terrorist training grounds in Iraq before 9/11. There were also training camps in dozens of countries...and Oregon!

No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq has even been shown to have possibly existed, much less proven. We invaded a country that was not a threat to us. Over a thousand Americans are dead as a result, and thousands more have lost legs, arms...not to mention 10,000+ dead Iraqi citizens that wanted nothing to do with any of this.

[Mad Mike]

Predicto thanks for once again living up to your name and posting predictably biased sources.

Let's look at the evil PNAC shall we?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPALS

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off he capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

You mean they want america to be a world leader? Oh the horror! Of particular interest to me is the highlighted section. I now refer you to the 9/11 commisions report...

"Just as we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. America does stand up for its values. The United States defended, and still defends, Muslims against tyrants and criminals in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. If the United States does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us." (Pg 337)

Insight for the future is thus not easy to apply in practice. It is hardest to mount a major effort while a problem still seems minor. Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier—but it then may be too late. (Pg 350)

Amazing isn't it? The bi-partizan commision came to the same conclusion that NPAC did back in 1997.

And what do those evil NPAC people want to do with all of that power?

End the Genocide Now

http://www.newamericancentury.org/darfur-20040922.htm

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by IbleedBurgundyNGold

Just thought I'd point out a couple of things about that report that are ostensibly listed as proof that an Iraq/Al Qaeda link exists.

Brigadier General Vincent Brooks himself admitted in the article that you posted that the finding of these training camps "reinforces the likelihood" that there were "clear links with common interests". That's a stretch. It's pretty clear from the wording that he's not really sure about that, and there was no "smoking gun" that linked this camp with any particular terrorist camp. What they fond was simply a military training camp, which isn't so surprising, considering the country in which it was found was under attack.

This camp was found a year and a half after 9/11. I have no doubt that there are groups with terrorist ties in Iraq now. There's no proof that Iraq had any terrorist activity before we invaded, and certainly no evidence pre-9/11.

And let's just say for the sake of argument that there were terrorist training grounds in Iraq before 9/11. There were also training camps in dozens of countries...and Oregon!

No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq has even been shown to have possibly existed, much less proven. We invaded a country that was not a threat to us. Over a thousand Americans are dead as a result, and thousands more have lost legs, arms...not to mention 10,000+ dead Iraqi citizens that wanted nothing to do with any of this.

You do know how to read dates don't you?

CENTCOM Operation Iraqi Freedom Briefing - 23 March 2003

http://www.gulfinvestigations.net/d...a8f5575ca94b745

Q Do you -- Matko Berzat (ph), Italian News Agency Anzer. Did you strike other terrorist targets like the camp of last Friday ? And did you find any link -- any evidence of link between the Iraqi regime and terrorist organizations ?

GEN. ABIZAID : Well, again, the discussion about links between the Iraqi and terrorist organizations are very clear cut , and we know that they exist, and I don't know that that's really something appropriate for me to comment on.

This was from the very start of the war. The camps he was refering to were there before we went into Iraq. It's pretty clear cut. Sorry but there is a TON of proof that Iraq was a major sponsor of terrorism. To say otherwise is patently false. You are wrong. I have posted the info with links and sources including the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post and others. I have cross referenced and double checked my info. I can back up every fact with multiple sources.

And you say "No link between Al Qaeda and Iraq has even been shown to have possibly existed, much less proven." Have you lost your mind? Please show me any reputable source who will agree with you. I will accept any democratic politician... show me the quote.

Reality, what a concept. :doh: