17-06-2005 07:11									#271
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ming Hmmm... could you find a link to where Bush "publically" claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11... I don't remember that speech... I do remember the massive amounts of WMD bit, and how they would end up in terrorists hands... but not the third...

OK, sorry. He got Chaney to do it for him. Old Dick was the front man for most of the administrations biggest lies. Karl Rove likes Bush to appear "Presidential" so shrub doesn't do his own lying. He deligates that job.

	17-06-2005 07:14									#272
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...3/0918proof.htm Ming's point I think

September 18, 2003 is long after the invasion was over. Chaney was making the claim in press confrences prior to the invasion right around the time Congress was voting on authorization. It was part of a campaign of lies to win Congressional approval and public backing prior to the invasion.

After the invasion was done Bush came clean and said it had all been a big misunderstanding. A misunderstanding which the administration did everything in its power to promote.

	17-06-2005 07:15									#273
	Got spare money?

I think Ming's point was Bush never said it.

	17-06-2005 07:16									#274
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ah, but that's not what Bush said originally. In his March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing war in Iraq, Bush said:

"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

So he's claiming we must attack Iraq because they planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks. None of which are true, we now know.

Last edited by Boris Godunov on 17-06-2005 at 10:44

	17-06-2005 07:16									#275
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by MrFun That's a reliable website for information?

Yeah, that's a political website designed to make excuses for garbage Republican policies. Just look at the ads for the CATO institute and how the big banner ad takes about the phase out of social security.

	17-06-2005 07:42									#276
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ming Hmmm... could you find a link to where Bush "publically" claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11... I don't remember that speech... I do remember the massive amounts of WMD bit, and how they would end up in terrorists hands... but not the third...

He never said it. Plenty of them connected him to Al Qaeda, which is as ridiculous.

	17-06-2005 08:47									#277
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Ah, but that's not what Bush said originally. In his March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing war in Iraq, Bush said: "(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." So he's claiming we must attack Iraq because they planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks. None of which are true, we now know.

Can't wait for Drake and others to eat this post.

	17-06-2005 08:50									#278
	Got spare money?

Maybe he did say it. More commie pwnage.

	17-06-2005 09:01									#279
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MrFun That's a reliable website for information?

I'm pretty sure I linked to it for its commentary. Not that Reason is disreputable by any stretch of the imagination...

quote: Can't wait for Drake and others to eat this post.

I haven't even been involved in that discussion!

	17-06-2005 09:04									#280
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I'm pretty sure I linked to it for its commentary. Not that Reason is disreputable by any stretch of the imagination...

But the bias of that website is obvious.

	17-06-2005 09:06									#281
	Support Apolyton

quote: But the bias of that website is obvious.

The author is an opponent of the war. You might have found that out if you had actually taken the time to read it rather than making up reasons to ignore an article from a reputable magazine...

	17-06-2005 09:09									#282
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I read the article the first time, thank you very much.


So just because this guy opposes the war in Iraq, we are suppose to believe in everything he says?

	17-06-2005 09:12									#283
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I thought he made interesting points that relate to the topic of this thread. Nothing says you have to believe anything he says. If you don't, you could try saying "I don't agree" rather than "that website is biased!!!"

And I don't know how anyone who read that piece could think that Cavanaugh was carrying water for Bush...

	17-06-2005 10:54									#284
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Cavanaugh thinks the American people "knew" was was inevitable by mid 2002 and that they don;t care anymore.

I think he is wrong on both counts, thought to different degrees.

1. On the "People already knew". False. If in this very forum people "did not know" and were assuming the admin. had some valid point in their WMD assertions, then why would we assume the vastly less informed American populace would know they were being lead by the nose? Going to war was always "popular" after 9/11 because people need to think our leaders where on top of it and "keeping us safe" by their actions. Making Iraq an issue did take a concerted campaign of spin, because people "did not just know".

2. As for, they don't care- with polls turning against Iraq, that is a strange thing to say- the public is starting to be very unhappy about Iraq, but the public does not like to ever remember they backed this war, so they need something to blame for their previous gung-ho adventurism, and being able to say "Hey, well, I was fooled" can have traction.

Will it go as far as in places were the Iraq war was never popular? No. BUt to say it will die on its own is very premature.

	17-06-2005 11:24									#285
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Last polls show 60% of the population no believe the US should withdraw from Iraq either immediately or in the near future. There will not be any good time to withdraw and the best we can hope for is to up the pace of training of the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi National Guard so that the government isn't totally powerless.

The current pace of training is a complete joke. Pushing three years and the best they can say is 70,000 have been trained but who knows how many have quit plus I remember the three week course which they considered to create a fully trained Iraqi Soldier. If the US and Iraqi governments really made it a priority then they could be training and equiping the 10k per month instead of the piddling amounts they're currently training.

Money b uys loyalty in Iraq so the more people you give jobs in the military then the more tribes you will find become loyal to the new government. Additionally this will give the government the manpower it needs to really go after the insurgency. Supposedly there are several million military vets in Iraq who have already had some form of training. It shouldn't to difficult to get a 500k Army back in place (half the pre-war size) which will go a long way towards restoring law and order.

	17-06-2005 11:27									#286
	Support Apolyton

Close to three years? You mean Over two...

But yeah, Iraq having had 300,000 men at arms in 2002, you would think it would not be impossible to get 100,000 back in arms in two years.

	17-06-2005 11:28									#287
	Increase Your PM Length

Anybody have occupation numbers for post war Germany and Italy?

	17-06-2005 12:01									#288
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I can't find them anywhere. But I ran across this thing. VERY INTERESTING! It's a manual for occupation soldiers in Germany.

quote: The German people may appear to be friendly and docile as you move into Germany. Are they? We've occupied Aachen for several months. Twice, at night, Germans have strung wires across the main road through Aachen to tear the head off some jeep driver. Two months after we moved into one little German village and posted proclamations directing Germans to turn in all arms, we made a house to house search and found more than 20 assorted firearms. Would you be friendly to a foreign army that occupied your home town and gave you orders ? If some friend of yours back home shot one of those men, wouldn't he be a hero to you and the whole community?

	17-06-2005 12:02									#289
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

.

Attachment: sucker.cover.jpg
This has been downloaded 44 time(s).

	17-06-2005 12:13									#290
	Support Apolyton

Of course, in the situation in Germany, the population was extremley docile and cooperated with their occupiers. It's a safe guess to say that the country was also occupied by millions of soldiers. (Had to be at least a million).

However, in reading that manual, you get the impression that every soldier was to expect the worst. Not the vision that Rumsfeld had, in which he expected crowds to be handing out flowers. Eisenhower had been planning for gruelling geurilla warfare as far ahead as 1944.

So, in the German case we have:

1) An overwhelming occupying force
2) Cooperative population
3) A plan, that assumed the worst

In Iraq we have:

1) Wayyyy undermanned occupying force
2) A large and well backed segment of the population actively resisting
3) Outside support and influence
4) A plan (or lack thereof) that was called incompetent by several senators (including several GOP senators)


The insurgency could have been contained if overwheming force had been applied to it from the start, and the streets had been contained, and if the security forces had not been disbanded.

	17-06-2005 12:40									#291
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse they are already sending back amputees - probably the first war ever where that has happened Maybe Charles Grainer and Lyndie England will get a second tour

Lord Nelson?

	17-06-2005 13:25									#292
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

yeah it goes back to 18th century

	17-06-2005 14:35									#293
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Bush publically claimed there were vast quantities of WMD in Iraq, that Saddam was behind 9/11, and that Saddam would give WMD's to Al Qaeda. All three of those claims were the exact opposite of the British and American intell reports which were given to Bush. If that isn't making stuff up I don't know what is.

regardless of the truth or lack thereof in the above statement, I ask again where in the Downing Street docs is there proof of FORGING?

Sorry if I'm being dense but you are applying other pieces of evidence/data to read into the DSM's something that wasn't stated.

	17-06-2005 15:01									#294
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Ah, but that's not what Bush said originally. In his March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing war in Iraq, Bush said: "(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.." So he's claiming we must attack Iraq because they planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks. None of which are true, we now know.

No he is not.

The charge was Iraq under Sadaam was a terrorist supporter. A charge with merit btw, considering their payola for suicide bomber policy.

The qualifier "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." is not necessarily an accusation that Iraq was complicit in 9/11. Post 9/11 Bush was adamant that all forms of terrorism needed to be eliminated. This verbage is a tie or reminder of that pledge.

	17-06-2005 17:38									#295
	Tired of ads?

Some men with some pretty terrible injuries are not only being sent back, but they are being put under terrible pressure to return. The BBC did an excellent report on that last year, but I'm not in the mood to fight with their site to find the report - it was nauseating.

In memory to all amputees who have served their countries (I prefer the John McDermott version, but this one suffices). Please listen to the song, whichever side of the argument you are on (and remember the state the US Veterans hospitals are in).

http://iwvpa.net/boglee/and_th.htm

	17-06-2005 18:05									#296
	Increase Your PM Length

Oerdin, the only thing new about this memo is the point that the Bush admin had given little thought about what happens after the military campaign. The memo is clear that the Brits believed that Saddam had WMD and even feared Saddam using them from day 1.

As to Bush's intentions about a war, he made it clear that there would be a war if Saddam didn't comply with the UN resolutions. That much was not news.

	17-06-2005 18:52									#297
	Remove this text

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4101420.stm

My understanding of it was that the military option on Iraq had a window of opportunity(avoiding winter) - so plans were made far in advance to go to war by such+such a date. A big deployment like we saw in Iraq cant just be put to gether in a few weeks - more like months(maybe years?) of planning needed to go into it.

Its just to the public we do seem to have 'caught' the politicians telling blatant lies about all this

And why the hell were members of Bin Ladens family allowed to fly out of the US after the 911 attacks?

hmmm.......i dont suppose anyone actualy feels like a sucker?

	17-06-2005 18:59									#298
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe No he is not. The charge was Iraq under Sadaam was a terrorist supporter. A charge with merit btw, considering their payola for suicide bomber policy. The qualifier "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." is not necessarily an accusation that Iraq was complicit in 9/11. Post 9/11 Bush was adamant that all forms of terrorism needed to be eliminated. This verbage is a tie or reminder of that pledge.

That's the lamest bit of weaseling I've seen in a long time. If Bush wasn't trying to say Iraq had some hand in 9/11, why mention it at all? He could have stopped at the "terrorist organizations" line and the same point would be made. It's not as if congress would see the authorization any different.

No, by adding the bit about 9/11, he is deliberately linking Iraq to 9/11. This was part and parcel of the administration's strategy to make links, spearheaded by Cheney on the Sunday morning news (including his repeating the claim about a meeting between Al Queda and Iraq officials in Prague even after that incident had been proven false).

	17-06-2005 19:12									#299
	Support Apolyton

2 officers fragged

	17-06-2005 20:34									#300
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov That's the lamest bit of weaseling I've seen in a long time. If Bush wasn't trying to say Iraq had some hand in 9/11, why mention it at all? He could have stopped at the "terrorist organizations" line and the same point would be made. It's not as if congress would see the authorization any different. No, by adding the bit about 9/11, he is deliberately linking Iraq to 9/11. This was part and parcel of the administration's strategy to make links, spearheaded by Cheney on the Sunday morning news (including his repeating the claim about a meeting between Al Queda and Iraq officials in Prague even after that incident had been proven false).

Sure it was weasle words doesn't mean that he stated Iraq was complicit in 9/11.

Sure he probably allowed the greater public to foster misconceptions about Iraq's involvedment or lack thereof in 9/11 but that is a far cry from stating it definitively.

Lastly sure he did esure that some link was made in order to pressure the Senate to back the resolution for fear of being the lone Senator who wouldn't fight terrorism. BUT that is still far different then saying Iraq played a role in 9/11.

So your example of Bush stating Iraq had a role in 9/11 still falls short.

By the by weasel words are part and parcel for any contract or legalese. If not then there would be no need for legal weasel lawyer types. Sorry thems parts of doin business whether in private business or government.