Obama's Wars

[joobz]

Actually it's never been proven Bush knowingly lied ..

True. I don't think it was malicious errors. I think it was just incompetence and seeing things that one wants to see. If you want to think Iraq was a relevant target after 9/11, than you will find all reasons to support that argument.

 

[BenBurch]

True. I don't think it was malicious errors. I think it was just incompetence and seeing things that one wants to see. If you want to think Iraq was a relevant target after 9/11, than you will find all reasons to support that argument.

Likely.

I apply the standard of "knew or should have known" to such things.

 

[Lurker]

As oposed to the President who knowingly lied to the American people and the UN and then went to war with a country that didn't attack us.

Let's not forget Bush's "Bring it on" invitation regarding the war. Conservatives defended that statement which actually invited attack and are attacking Obama's statement which spoke of America's strength and resilience.

Obama derangement syndrome lives on.

 

[DJW]

So, is Bob Woodward a victim of ODS?

 

[Loss Leader]

You mean the war Democrats supported?

Yes, the one that Congressional Democrats supported ... after they were lied to. The Bush Administration gave them inaccurate information, much of which they knew or should have known was false at the time. And Democrats in Congress made the grave mistake of actually taking the Executive branch at its word.

Had the information given to Congress been at all accurate, they might not have been quite so suportive.

But my real message is that blaming Obama for Afghanistan is kind of like blaming the newly redesigned Ford Fiesta for antisemitism.

 

[Giz]

Let's not forget Bush's "Bring it on" invitation regarding the war. Conservatives defended that statement which actually invited attack and are attacking Obama's statement which spoke of America's strength and resilience.

Obama derangement syndrome lives on.

Oh honestly, Bush's "Bring it on" was as much an invitation to attack as Churchill's "we shall fight them on the beaches" was an invitation to invade. It's pugnacious rhetoric. Sheesh.

 

[BeAChooser]

If you want to think Iraq was a relevant target after 9/11, than you will find all reasons to support that argument.

You mean like here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184566 ?

And then, folks like you will find all sorts of excuses to just ignore those reasons.

 

[joobz]

You mean like here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184566 ?

Exactly like that.

And then, folks like you will find all sorts of excuses to just ignore those reasons.

No, just one reason. The one you used to dismiss other speculations.

Noone can really say with any certainty what would have happened had the Bush administration taken a different approach in 2003-2006.

You see, that's the problem with Post Hoc rationalization.

Fact is, there was no WMD.
Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US.
Iraq distracted our military from what should have been our prime target, Al Qaeda.

 

[Lurker]

Oh honestly, Bush's "Bring it on" was as much an invitation to attack as Churchill's "we shall fight them on the beaches" was an invitation to invade. It's pugnacious rhetoric. Sheesh.

While I think there is a certain amount of nuance difference in each statement, in general, I agree. Why are conservatives treating the Obama and Bush statements so differently then? I don't recall conservatives lambasting Bush when he said, "Bring it on!" Nary a peep of protest.

By the way, a war between Germany/Britain and a terrorist/insurgent war like we have in Iraq are two very different animals so I think your comparison is invalid. In WWII we weren't trying to win the hearts and minds of the Germans, we were trying to defeat its army. In Iraq where every Iraqi could potentially join the fight against us we are trying to win the heart and minds of the Iraqi while we work to exterminate the insurgents/terrorists.

 

[Loss Leader]

Actually it's never been proven Bush knowingly lied

Here you go.

and Saddam did attack the US and British jets enforcing the no-fly and no-drive zones.

Fine, he never attacked US civilians, nor did he attack US troops outside of the region.

He also tried to assassinate the former president.

Not necessarily.


But my main point in bringing it us is that Iraq was not a sufficient threat to the security of Americans to justify war. Saddam was a loose cannon and wasn't exactly a friend of democracy, but he also was a secularist who deeply hated the kinds of fundamentalists at work in Iran and Afghanistan and was not aligned with them in any way.

 

[BeAChooser]

Fact is, there was no WMD.

Fact is, you haven't proven that. You can't even honestly answer the 6 questions I asked in that thread, joobz.

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US.

Fact is, Bush never claimed that. In fact, he specifically stated that Iraq was NOT an "imminent" threat in his SOTU address. He said we needed to act to prevent Iraq from "becoming" one. And I proved in that thread using the Final ISG report that his concerns were justified. And, by the way, it was democrats who started the "imminent" threat nonsense.

Iraq distracted our military from what should have been our prime target, Al Qaeda.

NONSENSE.

How could an invasion of Iraq, which didn't occur until 2 years our invasion of Afghanistan have distracted us?

Bin Laden himself stated that Iraq was the "central front" in his fight against the US.

al-Qaeda committed thousands and thousands of jihadists (yes, a term that Obama banned) to Iraq where they were put through a meat grinder and soundly defeated.

And up until the time that Obama took over, al-Qaeda was on the run in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here are some news reports just before Obama won the election and took office:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/media_spins_success_in_afghani.html "February 08, 2008, Media Spins Success in Afghanistan as Failure, American and Coalition forces have taken the initiative in Afghanistan, and have the Taliban on the run. Yet major American media outlets, to the extent they cover fighting in Afghanistan, are portraying the Taliban as "resurgent". Going on the offense and succeeding at it always increases violence. But is being spun onto bad news. The increase in fighting in Afghanistan is not a sign of a stronger Taliban, but rather a more desperate one. Despite all the media reports to the contrary it is we who are surging in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. ... snip ... No American media, except for the AP, not even the media that carries AP content, ran the story that NATO officially reported that the Taliban was not resurgent in Afghanistan. Most of the American media buried General McNeill's statement as well while continuing to use the "resurgent Taliban" characterization. Why? It should be painfully clear. To acknowledge that the Taliban is losing instead of winning is to validate the war policy of President Bush in the war against terror. When combined with a surge success in Iraq, the implications are dark for any Democrat nominee for the White House."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/427330 "Taliban 'losing momentum', Canadian UN official says most militants are looking for a way out of war they cannot win, May 19, 2008"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-Taliban-insurgents-'on-brink-of-defeat'.html "Afghan insurgents 'on brink of defeat'... snip ... June 2, 2008, Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a "tipping point", the commander of British forces has said. ... snip ... In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the "very effective targeted decapitation operations" that have removed "several echelons of commanders"."

If there's been any *distraction* in our war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban … it's been Obama … as Woodward's book apparently indicates.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Why doesn't Obama end the wars the Repugnicans started?"

 

[Augustine]

Yes, the one that Congressional Democrats supported ... after they were lied to. The Bush Administration gave them inaccurate information, much of which they knew or should have known was false at the time. And Democrats in Congress made the grave mistake of actually taking the Executive branch at its word.

Had the information given to Congress been at all accurate, they might not have been quite so suportive.

Congress has the power to hold hearings, of which quite a number were devoted to Iraq in the summer of 2002. The Senate was under Democratic control at the time. Could you be specific as to which administration officials lied in these public hearings? Are you alleging that Democratic chairmen such as Jay Rockefeller and Joe Biden, the current Vice-President, were negligent in their duties presiding over hearings relevant to this topic? Were they uninformed on issues which it was their responsibility to be informed on, and which they had in their power as Committee Chairmen the power to request testimony from any federal official at any time?

Are you just trying to distract from the troubles of the current administration and some unfortunate revelations in a recent book?

 

[Dancing David]

Let me know some of the stuff from Woodward's actual book....

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Virus
Actually it's never been proven Bush knowingly lied

Here you go.

LOL! That article is so full of flaws and holes as to be quite laughable (but then that's what I've come to expect from such a democrat leaning mouthpiece of the mainstream media). The reason is quite simple. It uses as it's primary source for the claim that Bush lied when he said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" none other than Ambassador Joe Wilson. Then it cites *unnamed* CIA sources that *insist* "the Bush administration was made aware some time before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was false." Well here are the real facts, folks …

First, George Tenet, Director of CIA, stated the following when that statement became controversial:

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President’s State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President’s State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound.

Second,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. ... snip ... The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

In fact,

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnmrb.asp

July 7, 2004. On that date, the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.

And finally regarding Iraq's Uranium stockpiles and what Saddam intended to do with them …

http://commonsenselogic.blogspot.com/2008/07/uranium-stockpile-yellowcake-removed.html

JULY 06, 2008

Well…it looks like Bush was right all along. Not only was Saddam looking for yellowcake but apparently he did find it and bought it.

But wait, 550 tons of yellowcake uranium? I thought the UN weapons inspectors removed all of Saddam’s yellowcake uranium from 1991-1998? Apparently not and thus Saddam was able to rebuild his nuclear program and would have been able to make nuclear weapons from 550 tons of yellowcake uranium.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml

In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.

The Times noted:

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium."

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions."

Here's more:

The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

And yes, inspectors did find the blueprints and components, corroborating Dr Obeidi's claims. But don't let the facts get in your way.

Quote:
He also tried to assassinate the former president.

Not necessarily.

LOL! Another article that quotes Joe Wilson and what he thinks.

The fact is, assassination was a way life for Saddam since he was a young man. At 22, Saddam took part in a failed assassination attempt against Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim and had to flee the country? When Saddam finally rose to the presidency in 1979, the first thing he did was direct the death of dozens and dozens of government officials who had come to listen to one of his speeches. In fact, his own mistress said she believes he ordered the assassination of Oday, his oldest son. It's not at all inconceivable that Saddam might seek revenge on the man who so embarassed him and ruined his ambitions.

Here are some excerpts from a 1997 FBI report that looked into the matter later on:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/05bush2.htm

The United States sent various personnel to Kuwait to investigate the alleged assassination attempt. Based on interviews of the alleged coconspirators, forensic examinations of the explosive devices, and intelligence reports, the United States Government concluded that Iraq was behind the attempted car bombing.

… snip …

In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser, which contained between 80 and 90 kilograms of plastic explosives connected to a detonator ( the Bush device or Bush explosive device ). The Kuwaitis also recovered ten cube-shaped plastic explosive devices with detonators (the cube-bombs ) from the Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.

On April 29, 1993, CIA bomb technicians compared the Bush explosive device to two known Iraqi explosive devices found in different Middle-Eastern countries in 1990 and 1991 (the Middle-East devices ) . The technicians reported that the remote control firing mechanism in the Bush device was identical to those in the Middle-East devices. Additionally, the technicians reported that blasting caps from the Bush device appeared to be identical to those found in one of the Middle-East devices. The technicians later concluded that the circuit board from the Bush device also closely resembled circuit boards from the Middle-East devices.

… snip …

Explosives examiner Jordan also traveled to Kuwait in May 1993 to examine the Bush device. Jordan examined the main charge, which was hidden in three panels in the Landcruiser and was capable of being detonated by remote control, a timing device, or a push-pull suicide switch. Jordan compared the Bush device to photographs of the Middle-East devices, as well as other devices, and concluded that the same person or persons manufactured the Bush device and one of the Middle-East devices, and that a connection existed between persons responsible for the Bush device and several other devices, including the other Middle-East device. Jordan reported these conclusions in a May 11, 1993 Laboratory report.

… snip …

On June 2, 1993, representatives of the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and others in the Department of Justice (DOJ) discussed the results of their investigations with representatives of the Clinton Administration. Three weeks later, the DOJ and CIA reported their conclusions. The DOJ and CIA reported that it was highly likely that the Iraqi Government originated the plot and more than likely that Bush was the target. Additionally, based on past Iraqi methods and other sources of intelligence, the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush.

… snip …

Specifically, the evidence presented to the Administration included admissions from the two main suspects, Al-Ghazali and Al-Asadi. Each confessed during interviews with the FBI that they had participated in the plot at the direction of IIS officers. Al-Asadi, an Iraqi national, stated that he was recruited by suspected IIS officer, Muhammad Jawad. Jawad reportedly instructed Al-Asadi to plant the cube-bomb explosives in commercial areas of Kuwait City and to guide Al-Ghazali to Kuwait University. Al-Asadi reported that Al-Ghazali later told him that Bush was the target, although Al-Ghazali disputed this assertion. Al-Ghazali, also an Iraqi National, reported that he was recruited by suspected IIS officer, Abu Rafid. Rafid allegedly told Al-Ghazali that Bush was the target of the bombing attempt. Al-Ghazali also reported that Muhammad Jawad assisted in the plot.

The Administration also received forensic results from the FBI and CIA. These results consisted primarily of comparisons of components from the Bush device to other known Iraqi devices, including the Middle-East devices. CIA technicians found that the remote-control firing devices in the Bush case closely resembled devices used in other IIS devices, including the Middle-East devices. They found that blasting caps in the Bush case had the same characteristics as those found in one of the Middle-East devices, and the detonators matched those found in the other Middle-East device and one of the Southeast Asia devices. They further determined that the cube-bombs incorporated timing circuits and remote control firing devices containing integrated circuits used by Iraq in other devices .

Likewise, FBI explosives examiner Jordan found that the makers of the Bush device and the Middle-East devices used the same basic components , including the same circuit boards, manufactured radio control units, and anodized metal container. The circuit boards even had the same serial numbers , suggesting a single manufacturer, according to Jordan. Jordan characterized the maker's placement of components and soldering techniques as a signature. Jordan added that he observed in the radio-controlled receiving units the same drilled holes, wiring, component selection for incorporating an external power source, and soldering expertise. He also observed similar heat-shrunk, textile, and plastic materials used to protect wires, along with an unusually large quantity of black electrical tape. Jordan also pointed to other similarities, including similar or identical breaks and jumpers in the circuit boards, similar computer-type ribbon cable, similar adhesive material added to the potentiometers, and the same positioning of resistors on the timing mechanism.

Additionally, before the missile strike, the CIA obtained various intelligence reports indicating involvement by the Iraqi Government. The CIA learned that the IIS was planning to assassinate Bush now that he had returned to private life and that the assassination attempt would occur only with authorization from Saddam Hussein. The CIA also received information suggesting that Saddam Hussein had authorized the assassination attempt to obtain personal revenge and intimidate Kuwait and other Arab states.

And here's an article from a left-wing, Bush hating source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

Aides met with Clinton Wednesday in the White House residence to present a summary of the evidence gathered by FBI and intelligence sources, the official said. On Thursday, Attorney General Janet Reno and CIA Director R. James Woolsey presented the president with their formal reports. ... SNIP ... Clinton was persuaded to act by three kinds of evidence, a senior intelligence official said last night. First, key suspects in the plot confessed to FBI agents in Kuwait. Second, FBI bomb experts painstakingly linked the captured car bomb to previous explosives made in Iraq. Third, unspecified intelligence assessments concluded that Saddam meant seriously the threats he has made against Bush. Other classified intelligence sources supported this analysis, the official said.

The combination made the CIA "highly confident that the Iraqi government, at the highest levels, directed its intelligence service to assassinate former president Bush," said the intelligence official. … SNIP ... Clinton relied heavily on evidence found by FBI bomb experts linking the Iraqi Intelligence Service to a 175-pound car bomb found April 14 in Kuwait City. According to senior intelligence and law enforcement officials, key pieces of the bomb -- including the remote-control detonator, the plastic explosives, the electronic circuitry and the wiring -- bore an overwhelming resemblance to components of bombs previously recovered from the Iraqis.

The White House press office distributed photographs of circuit boards and detonators taken from earlier Iraqi bombs, alongside photos of the same elements from the bomb meant for Bush. Even to the untrained eye, there were clear similarities. "Certain aspects of these devices have been found only in devices linked to Iraq," an intelligence official said.

Clinton also had the confessions of the two alleged leaders of the 16 suspects arrested by Kuwait when the plot was uncovered. Both are Iraqi nationals. Ra'ad Asadi and Wali Abdelhadi Ghazali told FBI investigators detailed to Kuwait that they met in Basra, Iraq, on April 12 with "individuals they believed to be associated with the Iraqi Intelligence Service," according to a senior U.S. intelligence official. They were given a vehicle loaded with hidden explosives. Ghazali told the FBI he was recruited specifically to kill Bush. Asadi also told the FBI he was to guide the car bomb, driven by his partner, to Kuwait University, where Bush was to be honored by the Emir of Kuwait for his leadership in the gulf war. Administration officials said the suspects told the FBI that the bomb was to be parked near the motorcade route. From a vantage point 300 to 500 yards away, Ghazali would set off the bomb using a remote control. FBI bomb specialists estimated the bomb would have been lethal for nearly a quarter-mile. FBI agents were told if the remote control device failed, the bomb was to be detonated by a timing device on a street in Kuwait City named for Bush. They were also told that Ghazali had a "bomb belt" he would use if all else failed; he was to wear it, approach Bush and blow them both up.

There have been reports that the suspects held in Kuwait have been tortured by Kuwaiti officials, but a senior law enforcement official said last night that FBI agents "believe they were not." Nevertheless, the official said, confessions are often unreliable, which is why the investigators placed "an especially great emphasis" on the conclusions of the bomb experts.

The CIA recalled that, after the gulf war, Saddam was heard on official Iraq media promising to hunt down and punish Bush, even after he left office. A senior intelligence official said the CIA also had classified evidence proving that the car bomb was meant for Bush, from Saddam.

Sorry, but I'd say the evidence suggesting there was an assassination plot by the Iraq regime against George Bush Sr was very strong, despite whatever *Common Dreams* would have you believe.

but he also was a secularist who deeply hated the kinds of fundamentalists at work in Iran and Afghanistan and was not aligned with them in any way.

Given that even the 911 Commission disagreed with that claim, not to mention the CIA, DIA and others, one might wonder if you weren't trying, just now, to lie to the forum.

 

[Loss Leader]

Are you alleging that Democratic chairmen such as Jay Rockefeller and Joe Biden, the current Vice-President, were negligent in their duties presiding over hearings relevant to this topic?

Are you arguing that it is negligent for the legislature to actually believe the information supplied to it by the executive branch?

 

[Augustine]

Are you arguing that it is negligent for the legislature to actually believe the information supplied to it by the executive branch?

You seem to have missed a few questions, so I will bold them for you:

Congress has the power to hold hearings, of which quite a number were devoted to Iraq in the summer of 2002. The Senate was under Democratic control at the time. Could you be specific as to which administration officials lied in these public hearings? Are you alleging that Democratic chairmen such as Jay Rockefeller and Joe Biden, the current Vice-President, were negligent in their duties presiding over hearings relevant to this topic? Were they uninformed on issues which it was their responsibility to be informed on, and which they had in their power as Committee Chairmen the power to request testimony from any federal official at any time?

Are you just trying to distract from the troubles of the current administration and some unfortunate revelations in a recent book?

In response to your question, no, that is not what I am arguing at all.

 

[joobz]

Fact is, you haven't proven that. You can't even honestly answer the 6 questions I asked in that thread, joobz.

You can't prove a negative. Just Like I can't prove there isn't WMD on Mars.

Did we find WMD in Iraq?
Simple answer, NO.

 

[Loss Leader]

Could you be specific as to which administration officials lied in these public hearings?

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES LIED IN HIS Constitutionally mandated STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS to Congress.

 

[Augustine]

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES LIED IN HIS Constitutionally mandated STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS to Congress.

Could you point out the lie specifically?

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade.
This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/sou012902.htm

I take it you have no evidence of administration officials lying to Congress in any hearings? Correct?