Why isn't there more talk of the smoking gun memo?

[Dinner]

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.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918proof.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.

[Alexander's Horse]

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

[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.

[Dinner]

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.

[Agathon]

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.

[MrFun]

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.

[Agathon]

Maybe he did say it. More commie pwnage.

[Drake Tungsten]

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...

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

I haven't even been involved in that discussion!

[MrFun]

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.

[Drake Tungsten]

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...

[MrFun]

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?

[Drake Tungsten]

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...

[GePap]

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.

[Dinner]

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.