War on iraq

July 11, 2004 12:03 AM

'The Dots Never Existed' Taken together, the facts in the report show that virtually every major claim President George W. Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq—from Saddam's growing nuclear program to his close ties with Al Qaeda—was either wrong or exaggerated.
posted by Rastafari (63 comments total)

bush took the country to war and killed 10s of thousands of iraqi civilians and over a thousand american solidiers either: a. because he's a liar, or b. because he appointed liars to tell him what he needed to know as president.

either way - time go. bye bye asshole.
posted by specialk420 at 12:11 AM on July 11, 2004

Well, duh. But I think a better way to see it is that there were a hell of a lot of dots, but that they were bogus/manufactured. It will be interesting to see how far back they trace the false intel, if they decide to do so - e.g. the Niger yellowcake story - and see who planted it. Cui bono, etc.
posted by carter at 12:17 AM on July 11, 2004

Doesn't matter. 50%+ are still gonna vote for him. He stands for values.
posted by herc at 12:34 AM on July 11, 2004

Nation’s Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue
posted by loquax at 12:40 AM on July 11, 2004

50%+ are still gonna vote for him. He stands for values.

Values? Unless dishonesty and a megalomaniacal obsession with bringing about Armageddon are now considered "values" I seriously doubt that assertion.

Then again Shrubya doesn't really have to "stand for values", just fool enough Americans into thinking he does, which, I must admit, has proven to be a disarmingly easy task.
posted by clevershark at 1:14 AM on July 11, 2004

Ignorance is tearing America to pieces.
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:21 AM on July 11, 2004

In so many words, try not to blame the CIA. They were actually trying to do their jobs. Has anyone seen The truth sbout the Iraq war?
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:23 AM on July 11, 2004

I do not like Bush. I did not vote for him and I will not vote for him in the next electiobn. That said, thoughk, the report(s) placze the blame mostly upon a failure of Intelligence. CIA, for example, had as its leader a Clinton apointee (Tenent), and though it is conventional to blame the guy in charge (the buck stops here), can Bush truly be blamed when he was fed the wrong or made up material? In short, did he know that what was given and told him was poor or lying intelligence?After all, how many in Congress supported the invasion of Iraq based on the same intelligence? Hindsight makes us totally aware (now) of how fucked the entire thing was.
posted by Postroad at 5:04 AM on July 11, 2004

two tons of uranium was removed from Iraq last week. Sarin gas has been found. Other toxins have been found.

Intelligence is never perfect, but given the entired world believed he had WMDs, you, poster, are simply wrong.

Actually, Bush will likely win in a landslide--much better an outcome than the liberal, rudderless, idea-less alternative.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:13 AM on July 11, 2004

Nation’s Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue

It's funny because it's true. And when Bush wins the election (which I'm convinced he will) it'll be a sharp drop from fatigue into wrist-slicing despair.

two tons of uranium was removed from Iraq last week

300 tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Iraq during the first Gulf War. Due to sanctions no equipment was allowed into the country that would have been able to safely remove the material. Now, excuse me, will you let me through so I can microwave my burrito?
posted by dodgygeezer at 5:37 AM on July 11, 2004

Intelligence is never perfect, but given the entired world believed he had WMDs, you, poster, are simply wrong.

This must some fantasy world that consists entirely of Americans, because the rest of us weren't so convinced. Hence the remarkable lack of international support for this war. You guys should really listen to more internaional radio.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:53 AM on July 11, 2004

Uranium from commercial reactors was removed. Nice, but not worth starting a war over this.

A couple of ancient warheads were found, big deal. I don't think anyone would start a war over those.
posted by caddis at 6:02 AM on July 11, 2004

two tons of uranium was removed from Iraq last week

Selective memory? or just careful use of words to imply that that this is in any way linked to finding WMD?

Those two tons of uranium were actually -found- in the first gulf war. So unless I am getting this wrong, this was sealed by the IAEA, and Saddam, who apparently was very hungry for finding nuclear material didn't touch the uranium there, despite it being in his own land, and in fact, it was safe until after the US invaded and looters stole materials when they left the facilities unguarded.

IAEA complained and it took the US one year to do anything about it. I would be careful of using that as a support point; if anything, it is an embarrassment to the administration.


posted by oneiros at 6:03 AM on July 11, 2004

two tons of uranium was removed from Iraq last week.

Slight problem. This is nuclear material that was accounted for- declared via the 1991 inspections policy and monitored by the IAEA. This wasn't a "discovery of hidden weapons." This was a "discovery of previously secured nuclear material that, after sending in troops, we left open for terrorists to come in, take, and pack into dirty bombs. Booyah!"

To take the removal of nuclear material that was safe until the U.S. army put at risk of entering terrorist hands is a new low in bullshit rhetoric and a new high in desperation, FreedomParamus. Even for you.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:08 AM on July 11, 2004

Since PP is unlikely to provide more than a "nah, nah" reply, I will switch teams to just stir the pot a bit.

Saddam acknowledged tons of chemical and perhaps bio weapons after the first Gulf war. UN inspectors found and documented destruction of much of this, but significant quantities remained for which an accounting was lacking. Where did it go? We asked Saddam and he essentially gave us the finger. We had precious few intelligence sources in Iraq and Bill Clinton fell down on the job by failing to get more people on the ground inside the country. The best we had were exiles with an axe to grind against Saddam. Nevertheless, they purported to have knowledge. We had little ability to back up their claims. We took a leap of faith, supported in part by Saddam's notorious bad faith, and believed these reports of Saddam's continuing quest for WMDs. How, in the face of all this can you say that we moved in bad faith? We had the security of the US and the world to protect.

The softball has been tossed. Anyone ready to take a swing. I am leaving future pitches to PP.
posted by caddis at 6:23 AM on July 11, 2004

It's so clever of the Administration to recognize and make use of the fact that all arguments about the Iraqi war end up boring most voters back into apathy.
posted by divrsional at 6:41 AM on July 11, 2004

can Bush truly be blamed when he was fed the wrong or made up material? In short, did he know that what was given and told him was poor or lying intelligence?After all, how many in Congress supported the invasion of Iraq based on the same intelligence? Hindsight makes us totally aware (now) of how fucked the entire thing was.

Truly, it depends on who spoon-fed him the material. Also, Bush appointed a team whose greatest contribution towards threat analyses in the mid- to late-nineties was to change the priority of what was probable to what was possible. This distinction seems to have been lost on everyone involved, as if it has been policy all along (whereas I'd like to believe it was more the exception than the rule). Further, most of the evidence/intelligence presented to the administration carried certain caveats, such as 'might', 'possibly', 'potentially'... There is no sign that Bush/Cheney understood the distinction, as they consistently presented any evidence as being concrete, without any semblance of doubt. (and were this a single occurance or two, it could be let slide, but it seems systematic to me).

Congress voted for war power after the administration gave presentations with their 'hair on fire', using this intelligence and demanding their immediate action. I'm not sure how much of an excuse this is, but who's the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him?

And lastly, for some nations, it didn't take hindsight to see that this was totally fucked from the get-go. In fact, it's just possible that the 'world' which we credit as being in step with our beliefs of Iraq's bellicosity is overblown, and maybe that's why certain 'old' European countries refused to contribute to our invasion force.

But the eggs are broken now, and nobody seems to have a recipe for an omelette.
posted by Busithoth at 6:54 AM on July 11, 2004

The only person lying about yellowcake in Nigeria was Joe Wilson (and his CIA wife)
posted by Mick at 7:24 AM on July 11, 2004

But Kerry hangs out with celebrities! CELEBRITIES!!!
posted by PrinceValium at 8:02 AM on July 11, 2004

The only person lying about yellowcake in Nigeria was Joe Wilson

mick and dick cheney sure hope they can get this one to fly...
posted by specialk420 at 8:08 AM on July 11, 2004

In regards to the Niger, Yellowcake story....
I'm curious about the fake documents.
Who...What...WHY would those exist?

Oh, and I believe we just had our 700,000th comment!
posted by jaronson at 8:13 AM on July 11, 2004

I guess I should refer to them as forged documents.
And, now I see that Sen. Rockefeller and TPM is also curious. Thank you, specialk420.
posted by jaronson at 8:24 AM on July 11, 2004

"can Bush truly be blamed when he was fed the wrong or made up material?"

Actually, the committee decided to push the issues about Bush & Co pressuring people to help them make the case for war, or manipulating the evidence it got, off until after the election. More pointedly - The report doesn't finger the president because they decided to do that after the election.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:40 AM on July 11, 2004

Can Bush truly be blamed when he was fed the wrong or made up material?

If anyone had really paid attention the last couple of years, it would be clear as day that the neocons in this administration have been planning an Iraq invasion since the end of first Gulf War*, because, and they really believe this, they think they can bring democracy, American-style capitalism, apple pie, Fear Factor, and all those other wonderful things associated with (American-inspired) democracy.

9/11 just gave them an excuse to invade Iraq.

*Just ask Bush's 1st secretary of treasury, Paul O' Neal, who says Bush had been obsessed about invading Irar since day one, and just ask Richard Clarke, who says that Paul Wolfowitz tried to connect Saddam Hussain to the 1994 WTC bombing, and to which Bush wanted to connect 9/11 with, despite massive evidence to the contrary
posted by Rastafari at 8:50 AM on July 11, 2004

The very structure of the investigation, as Rockefeller noted, necessarily pushed any discussion of the administration's responsibility for or role in the debacle back until after the November election -- a veritable tour de force of political convenience. (1)

I'm surprised this part of the story was missed - in the lead up to the release of the bipartisan report, it was reported that what was being released by the US Senate Intelligence Committee was not the full report. Instead, they withheld information regarding the Bush administration and will reportedly release the rest after the election.

However, on page 44 there is a reference to Wilson reporting to the CIA that "an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998 [but that] no contract was ever signed with Iran." (2)

However, in this article by the AP, and every conservatives wet dream, the information is repeatedly misappropriated from the report. Yet the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Rockefeller, implied at the press conference for the reports release:

that each of these conclusions was either false or so incomplete as to be deeply misleading. (3)

posted by sequential at 8:52 AM on July 11, 2004

French and British intelligence separately told the United States about possible Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger, the report said. The report from France is significant not only because Paris opposed the Iraq war but also because Niger is a former French colony and French companies control uranium production there. (1)

So France, Italy and the United States each had reports about the alleged Iraq-Niger sales. And each stemmed from the same source -- the forged documents, the origins of which the SSCI chose not to investigate. (2)

posted by sequential at 8:59 AM on July 11, 2004

Excellent way of putting it Special K 420. I have never felt such disgust for the President of our country, as I have toward this arrogant boob Bush.
posted by RubberHen at 9:09 AM on July 11, 2004

ParisParamus - you are truly one of the mesmerized. Landslide - I wager against that. Just like his first landslide?
posted by RubberHen at 9:11 AM on July 11, 2004

Key Revisions Were Made to CIA Document
(LATimes)
Dedicating a section of its 511-page report to discrepancies between the two versions of the crucial October 2002 NIE, the panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.
"The intelligence community's elimination of the caveats from the unclassified white paper misrepresented their judgments to the public, which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments," the Senate panel's report concluded.
"The fact that the NIE changed so dramatically from its classified to its unclassified form and broke all in one direction, toward a more dangerous scenario … I think was highly significant," the committee's vice chairman, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), said Friday.

Unfortunately, we won't find out til after the election just who ordered those changes.
posted by amberglow at 9:24 AM on July 11, 2004

Am I taking crazy pills?

The intelligence is not the point - Hans Blix was sent to Iraq to look for WMD and his investigation was stopped. It was stopped because they hadn't found anything - which should have been the reason it continued.

How the fuck does that logic work?

There was little need to depend on intelligence but Bush & Co decided they would and that's why war went ahead.
posted by dodgygeezer at 10:10 AM on July 11, 2004

Wait a minute. You mean Bush lied to us? Now I'm pissed!
posted by keswick at 10:22 AM on July 11, 2004

you owe crash royalties, there ;)
posted by trondant at 11:03 AM on July 11, 2004

This is one of the most absolutely ridiculous, disgraceful, editorializing, and intentionally obtuse partisan non-stories I've ever read. So congratulations, Isikoff.

We know that Bush, Gore, and Clinton all linked al Qaeda to Hussein, all knew he had weapons because he flippin' well used them, and didn't tell anybody where he put them!!!!


Please follow closely:

Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus

The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections

Ansar Al-Islam: Iraq's Al-Qaeda Connection

There. Now, again:

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard

Saddam Hussein's Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Hussein a 'Grave Danger,' Iraqi Scientist Says

IRAQ: Failing To Disarm

Most importantly: Iraq Overview, with detailed information on Iraq's *nuclear*, *biological*, *chemical*, and *missile* programs!!
posted by hama7 at 1:00 PM on July 11, 2004

If Los Angeles were a smoking radioactive crater because of Hussein, all the same hypocritical whiners would be screaming; "BUSH DIDN'T DO ENOUGH TO PROTECT US!!!"

Thankfully, some people understand these sniveling ploys all to well:

The liberals who cried 'didn't do enough!' - Michelle Malkin.
posted by hama7 at 1:10 PM on July 11, 2004

two tons of uranium was removed from Iraq last week.

Seems this Uranium existed from the 1990's and was 'sealed' via the UN resolutions. The existance have exactly what to do with fake 'yellow cake from Nigeria'?

Sarin gas has been found.

In quanities that threaten the United States? Because the basis of "a threat" is why The President asked The Congress to 'wage liberation' in Iraq.

Other toxins have been found.

I can find other toxins in the United States. I visit the paint department at Wal*Mart. I then visit the garden department and look at the (herb/insecta)cides. Any 'modern' civilization has alot of toxins.

Do you have a point to make with your 3 claims or is it just some handwaving?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:23 PM on July 11, 2004

More of the same from hama7: a few Washington Times links, A Fox News piece, something from WhiteHouse.gov, a CNN piece saying:

The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel. U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.

Furthermore, in the piece he linked to on the NTI site, the following is said:

IAEA inspectors returned to Iraq in November 2002 until the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The IAEA still remains confident that most of the program has been exposed and dismantled. Coalition forces currently in Iraq have yet to find definitive evidence of a reconstituted nuclear program.

Essentially, nothing you linked to refutes any of the claims made in the original post. If you are going to waste everyone's time with this bullshit you might as well post to non-opinion pieces that actually back up your stance.

You know, in the non political spectrum, Hama7 comes up with truly outstanding FPP's on Metafilter time and again. But these frothing at the mouth, "I hate liberals" diatribles, I simply do not understand.
posted by psmealey at 2:43 PM on July 11, 2004

other finger-pointing blabbermouths on the 9-11 Commission refuse to credit the Bush administration for its use of immigration law to detain Moussaoui in mid-August 2001 (he had violated the terms of the Visa Waiver program). This unheralded enforcement decision before the terrorist attacks quite possibly saved thousands of lives.
from 'didn't do enough' link from hama7

That may well be so, but no mention whatsoever about the Visa Express program. Moussaoui's apparant crime was being too blunt in his intentions, and not coming from Saudi Arabia. If the Bush administration hadn't rubber-stamped anyone from Saudi Arabia's entry to the country, maybe a couple of other hijackers would've been stopped. Some had already entered the country before the program was implemented, but at least two of them didn't even have to meet with an american to gain access to american soil and launch their attack which did kill thousands.

Bravo to that! Any critic to that policy deserves beheading!
posted by Busithoth at 3:01 PM on July 11, 2004

But these frothing at the mouth, "I hate liberals" diatribles, I simply do not understand.

feelingdesperate
posted by y2karl at 3:06 PM on July 11, 2004

Hama7 has this bizarre protective device. You say something he doesn't agree with, and like a porcupine shooting quills, he covers the page with links.

Sixteen links this time - holy shit. And all them from last year. I think we all know things have moved on a bit since then.
posted by dodgygeezer at 3:36 PM on July 11, 2004

Who cares? Every last anti-American in the world now knows that if they step slightly out of line, or appear to do so, they're at risk of having their solid gold outhouses turned over to the tender mercies of Alabama's finest 19-year-olds, and that's exactly as it should be.
posted by MattD at 4:28 PM on July 11, 2004

*steps out of line*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:33 PM on July 11, 2004

... Other toxins have been found.

I have quite a few toxins under my kitchen sink too.

There was no public legitimate reason for the invasion. Only those whose ideology is so closely aligned with the administration that to admit that their support for this action was incorrect might cause some kind of personal crisis would say so. And perhaps those who love watching war on tv.

Saying the Iragi people are better off without Saddam is so belittling a response it send shivers.

Here is the leader of the nation which has the worlds most powerful military, who many of us are intrinsically apart of through family, friends, and work, telling the world he can essentially invade any country at will. As long as the benefits (ie. monetary gains) out way the risks of course.

If we didn't have these intrinsic links would we still have such a favourable view of this nation? Should the rest of world start arming themselves to protect themselves against this new American regime?
posted by cmacleod at 4:44 PM on July 11, 2004

Every last anti-American in the world now knows that if they step slightly out of line, or appear to do so, they're at risk of having their solid gold outhouses turned over to the tender mercies of Alabama's finest 19-year-olds, and that's exactly as it should be.

Oh yeah, just as soon as we finish up in Iraq, we'll show them a thing or two. Boy, I'll bet they are trembling in their bathroom slippers this very second....
posted by y2karl at 5:14 PM on July 11, 2004

This anti-American doesn't seem to be very worried.
posted by homunculus at 5:43 PM on July 11, 2004

He stands for values.

Kerry had a nice thought on this today on tv. Approximately: "The values we stand for in this campaign are the values we all share as Americans that are inclusive, not the few values we argue over that are divisive."

As for Bush, set aside what he knew, what lies he told, his motives, and all the rest. Look at the results. We are no safer today than 4 years ago. If an employee doesn't get results or is ineffectual, you fire him and give someone else a shot. Simple.
posted by rushmc at 5:56 PM on July 11, 2004

9/11 Report Is Said to Dismiss Iraq-Qaeda Alliance
posted by homunculus at 8:48 PM on July 11, 2004

Who cares? Every last anti-American in the world now knows that if they step slightly out of line, or appear to do so, they're at risk of having their solid gold outhouses turned over to the tender mercies of Alabama's finest 19-year-olds, and that's exactly as it should be.

War News for July 11, 2004
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi translator working for US forces killed near Kirkuk.
Bring ‘em on: Four US Marines killed in al-Anbar province.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi police captain wounded in ambush near Kirkuk.
Bring ‘em on: Movie theater firebombed in Kirkuk.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi police foil pipeline sabotage near Karbala.
Bring ‘em on: One US soldier killed, one wounded in roadside bomb ambush near Mosul.

War News for July 9 and 10, 2004
Bring ‘em on: One Iraqi child killed in Baghdad mortar attack.
Bring ‘em on: Two Iraqis killed in Samarra mortar attack.
Bring ‘em on: One US soldier killed in Baghdad ambush.
Bring ‘em on: Two Turkish truck drivers killed in ambush near Samarra.
Bring ‘em on: Insurgents reportedly beheaded three hostages.
Bring ‘em on: Liquor shops bombed in Baquba.
Bring ‘em on: Two insurgents killed in firefight near Ramadi.
Bring ‘em on: Two Bulgarians kidnapped by insurgents in near Mosul.
Bring ‘em on: Five US soldiers, two ICDC members killed in Samarra mortar attack.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi working for US forces mutilated near Mosul.
Bring ‘em on: One US soldier wounded by roadside bomb near Samarra.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi interpreter taken hostage near Ramadi.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi wounded in roadside bomb ambush of US convoy near Baquba.
Bring ‘em on: Gas pipeline sabotaged near Kirkuk.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi guard killed in attack in Kirkuk.

War News for July 7, 2004
Bring ‘em on: Four US Marines killed in action in al-Anbar province.
Bring ‘em on: Heavy fighting reported in Baghdad.
Bring ‘em on: Son of Ramadi city council chief assassinated.
Bring ‘em on: Six Iraqis wounded in Baghdad mortar attack.
Bring ‘em on: Fourteen Iraqis killed, 70 wounded in car bombing near Baquba.
Bring ‘em on: Oil pipeline sabotaged near Kirkuk.
Bring ‘em on: Two Iraqi policemen wounded in ambush near Latifiyah.
Bring ‘em on: Convoy ambushed by roadside bomb near Basra. One Iraqi killed.
Bring ‘em on: Green Zone mortared in Baghdad.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi police defuse car bomb in Baghdad.
Bring ‘em on: Four Iraqis wounded in attack on police checkpoint near Kirkuk.

War News for July 6, 2004
Bring ‘em on: Three US Marines killed in fighting in al-Anbar province.
Bring ‘em on: Twelve Iraqis killed in US airstrike in Fallujah.
Bring ‘em on: Two US helicopter pilots wounded by ground fire near Fallujah.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi police kill two car bombers near Sulimaniyah.
Bring ‘em on: US troops kill Iraqi child at Baghdad checkpoint.
Bring ‘em on: More explosions reported near Fallujah.

War News for July 5, 2004
Bring ‘em on: Oil pipeline sabotaged near Hawijat al-Fallujah.
Bring ‘em on: Oil pipeline sabotaged near Karbala.
Bring ‘em on: One Iraqi killed in rocket attack in Basra.
Bring ‘em on: Two relatives of Baquba district head assassinated.
Bring ‘em on: US convoy attacked near Samawah, one Iraqi wounded.
Bring ‘em on: Five Iraqis wounded by roadside bomb near Mosul.
Bring ‘em on: US fuel convoy ambushed by RPG fire near Baghdad.
Bring ‘em on: Seven Iraqis killed in bomb attack on Iraqi Army convoy in Baghdad.
Bring ‘em on: Polish troops ambushed by roadside bomb near Karbala.

Yeah, Alabama's finest 19-year olds have really got the world cowed.

And how typically class separating...."Alabama's finest 19-year olds" fighting to supposedly protect the safe, older, pampered Americans bravely cheering them on from behind their computer keyboards. America is growing increasingly fed up with craven chickenhawks who send "Alabama's finest 19 year olds" to do the fighting and dying in an immoral war.

And that growing anger is exactly as it should be.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:54 PM on July 11, 2004

And that growing anger is exactly as it should be.

There's a lot more hope and relief than anger in Iraq, unless it's a growing sense of frustration among Iraqis and the coalition troops with foreign mercenaries and terrorists entering Iraq to destroy stability.

We would have missed out on all the intended "Bring 'em on!" cut-and-paste bravado, but you could have made your obscenely peculiar "I'm-a-peacenik-but-kill-all-the-soldiers-because-the-enemy-will-win" point by simply providing a link thus: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

Most know those numbers by heart anyway. They do not bring a sense of elation that the world's most powerful and morally just military might somehow be shaken or falter, that support for the removal of a murderous tyrant with terrorist ties will weaken, or that constant harping and capricious sniveling about the very few complications in Iraq will obfuscate the vast majority of successes and approval.
posted by hama7 at 6:38 AM on July 12, 2004

Rice: Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical weapons
posted by hama7 at 6:39 AM on July 12, 2004

good catch, hama7. if iraq trained al qaeda in chemical weapons, then they would indeed have had a collaborative relationship which conflicts with the 9/11 commission's report from this year (notice that news link is from 2002...you did read it before you posted it, right?). that's a pretty glaring lie on rice's part.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:38 AM on July 12, 2004

I did not see that as a kill the soldiers post. Rather, it points out how much further away victory appears to be than portrayed by our President. Also, after our essentially solo invasion of another nation and the subsequent treatment of prisoners I am not so sure we can say that our military is the world's most morally just.
posted by caddis at 7:48 AM on July 12, 2004

hama7: There's a lot more hope and relief than anger in Iraq, unless it's a growing sense of frustration among Iraqis and the coalition troops with foreign mercenaries and terrorists entering Iraq to destroy stability.

Sir, I am afraid I must respectfully disagree:

80% in Iraq Distrust Occupation Authority: Results of Poll, Taken Before Prison Scandal Came to Light, Worry U.S. Officials. 13 May 2004. In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.

New Iraq poll: US seen as an 'occupying force': US soldiers are seen as 'uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect.' 29 April 2004.

USA Today Poll: Iraqis out of patience. 30 April 2004. The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters.

Grim Numbers: A U.S.-sponsored poll shows Iraqis have lost confidence in the occupying authorities—and that the majority of Iraqis want Coalition troops out of the country. 16 June 2004. The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence” in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.

Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed also said they believed violent attacks have increased around the country because “people have lost faith in the Coalition forces.”

The poll numbers were reflected in the anger seen in the streets of Baghdad after a series of car bombings on Monday. While U.S forces and Iraqi police hung back, crowds set some of the vehicles on fire, threw bricks and shouted insults at U.S. soldiers. According to the poll, a mere 1 percent of Iraqis now feel that the Coalition forces contribute most to their sense of security; only 18 percent described Iraqi police the same way. By contrast, a total of 71 percent said they depended mostly on their family and friends and neighbors for security.

Maybe in May of 2003 hope and relief would have outweighed anger in Iraqi hearts, but it just doesn't seem that way to me anymore. It is foolish at this point to imagine that "foreign terrorists" are behind the continuing violence and unrest in Iraq, since American commanders in the field have readily admitted that the vast majority of the insurgents are indigenous Iraqis of one stripe or another.

As far as foldy's comment: I believe the use of "Bring 'em on" in this context is meant to be a sarcastic mockery of Bush's safe-at-home bravado when asked last summer whether he was concerned about continuing guerrilla attacks against Coalition soldiers. It does not necessarily indicate a gloating over American deaths. On the contrary, foldy is expressing his/her outrage over the cavalier attitude towards soldier's lives that that statement exemplifies, and about this war that was borne on lies, has not made us safer, and has no end in sight.

I hate explaining irony.

Finally, if you're going to cite references to WMD-in-Iraq claims, please give us news articles from this year, and not two years ago. Much of what the Administration claimed about Iraq, WMD, and links to al-Qa'ida has been discredited, most recently by a report issued by a bipartisan, but Republican-majority Senate committee. Not tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists, and not pinko leftist radicals, but Republican Senators. So you'll forgive us if we are reluctant to believe anything that came out of Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, or Bush's mouth about Iraq in 2002 and 2003. It's a cynicism begotten by bitter experience.

on preview: Actually, mcsweetie's got a good point. Keep posting those 2002-2003 links; liars thrive on historical amnesia, and we need to strengthen our collective memory more than ever these days. And ditto, caddis.
posted by skoosh at 9:05 AM on July 12, 2004

Sir, I am afraid I must respectfully disagree

So, sir, must I.

about this war that was borne on lies, has not made us safer, and has no end in sight.

There were no lies "borne" about the danger of Hussein, his removal has made the region and the United States immeasurably safer, and Iraq governance is now in the hands of the Iraqis.

What are you talking about?

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

posted by hama7 at 12:53 PM on July 12, 2004

That warning was about attacks after it was plain we were going to invade, attacks within the country.
posted by y2karl at 1:19 PM on July 12, 2004

The country of Iraq, that is--it was not a warning about attacks within the US borders.
posted by y2karl at 1:21 PM on July 12, 2004

his removal has made the region and the United States immeasurably safer

True, when immeasurably means too small to see

Iraq governance is now in the hands of the Iraqis.

Thing is, it was before too, just not an Iraqi we liked. At least not this decade.

I just wish we had paid as much attention to Afganistan as we have to Iraq. Then you could really make those arguments.
posted by dness2 at 1:37 PM on July 12, 2004

it was not a warning about attacks within the US borders.

Nothing whatsoever supports that claim. You're kidding, right?

""After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said"

Russia warned US about Saddam Hussein attacks, says Putin

Putin Says Iraq Planned U.S. Attacks

Putin says he warned US that Hussein plotted attack

Putin says Iraq planned US attack

Putin: Saddam's regime was planning terror attacks before Iraq war

Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam'

Putin Says Russia Warned U.S. on Saddam

Russia warned US about Saddam Hussein attacks, says Putin

Russia Says It Warned U.S. Saddam Planned to Attack
posted by hama7 at 1:49 PM on July 12, 2004

Vladimir Putin also says in those articles that he is still against the war, that he didn't believe that there was a real risk and he does not claim a connection to al Qaeda.

In addition when Britain produced it's dossier on Iraq's WMD's Vladimir Putin said the following:
"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."

It's pretty clear he hasn't changed his position since then - the same can't be said of the British and American leaders.
posted by dodgygeezer at 3:11 PM on July 12, 2004

before I commit to reading all of those, can someone tell me if they're really just the same story, reworded, and linked up nine times? and furthermore, can someone tell if the "russian intelligence" involved is the same kinda stuff people are talking about when they say, "dude the whole world thought he had weapons! THE WHOLE WORLD like everybody in the world man?"
posted by mcsweetie at 3:13 PM on July 12, 2004

mcsweetie - it's the same article and can be summarised thus:
Mr Putin said Russia had warned the US on several occasions that Iraq was planning "terrorist attacks" on its soil. "After the events of 11 September 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues,"

Information received by Russian intelligence suggested Iraq was planning attacks in the United States, "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets".

"Despite that information... Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged. It is one thing to have information that (Saddam) Hussein's regime was preparing acts of terrorism - we did have this information and we handed it over. But we did not have information that they were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things."

I don't understand why that needed nine links
posted by dodgygeezer at 3:25 PM on July 12, 2004

I don't understand why that needed nine links

Quantity over quality?
posted by cmacleod at 10:55 PM on July 12, 2004

I don't understand why that needed nine links


It's hama7 on politics, which causes him to go off the rails.
posted by john at 3:13 PM on July 13, 2004

Allawi: Saddam connected to al-Qaida!
posted by hama7 at 12:25 PM on July 16, 2004