The Whole Truth About The Iraq War

[jones]

Well its only reasonable if you ask the same from us.

Jim, I just want you to be bit more open minded to my threads.

Really, Im extremely sincere in my views and when I go and explain them to people I get bashed. Its not always a good feeling for me. Others may shrug insults off like I suspect you do, but i take most comments seriously, ive always have, and deeply offends me when people cant even GRASP my viewpoint and just bash.
I'm suspecting you think I'm purposly menipulating the facts and trying to sway people with lies. I wouldnt do anything like that.
I REALLY want to bring about change in my country of the many wrongs I see, not what some website tells me. My beliefs are deep rooted and my world view is more unique than I could possibly explain to anyone. Too bad I lack the communication skills you call me on so often. Im working on that, sure my first post can explain that for you.

 

[jimnyc]

Look, Jones, I made it clear in my first couple of replies that I thought the source of the file was funny, and that "I" thought it was garbage. Am I not entitled to my opinion? Here is how you responded to my opinion, the opinion that in no way attacked you:

"Ya know, the nazis would have LOVED for more people like you. Dont question authority, religion entwined with politics, rascist, and arrogant. But thats just my opinion I could be wrong."

Now, do you still wonder why you got the replies you did?

 

[jimnyc]

I'll lay out the olive branch...

Jones, my apologies for turning personal against you. I don't agree with your opinions & I don't like moveon.org or their agenda. Neither is an acceptable reason for making personal comments towards another member.

 

[jones]

Understood, I can see myself doing something similar to what you have done to me, maybe not on this huge scale. Like if someone said Pat Robertson was pro democracy.

I mean, the reason for the nazi thing. I just keep seeing this one sided view from the right, theres no room for debate, no friendly negotiating to come to a reasonable conclusion that will benifit most.
And when I hear about the few democrats left in our politics being locked out of republican talks at our capitol.
and I pretty much handed you the answer on a silver plate(in my opinion), its considered garbage and you wont watch the full documentary. Its disturbing .

 

[Zhukov]

Wow, where to begin....

Ok, to be honest, I got through about 20 minutes of it before I got sick of taking notes.


First and foremost: by completely ommiting the Clinton Administration's repeated statements concerning Saddam's possesion of WMD this particular 'film' shows its bias right out of the gate.

Further, the majority of the dialogue in this 'film' is opinion. You have former CIA analysts elabortating on their ideas and opinions about the foreign policy they like best and would best like our country to follow, and former members of the foreign service giving opinions best left to CIA analysis.

One thing I simply cannot stand is the repeated statements that there was no "imminent" threat. Pres. Bush never said there was and imminent threat. It was the policy to act BEFORE there was an imminent threat. But that little distinction no matter how often explained simply will not sink into the minds of people who do not like our current President. Consequently, all I ever hear is: "well there was no imminent threat, therefore"...yeah, that's what the President said, pay attention.

A former foreign service agent stated, in his opinion, that it was extremely unlikely the intelligence agencies would ever find enough information that would neccesitate the war. Well, the President disagreed, and he's the President, so that man's opinion is irrelevant.

There was a former CIA analyst giving his opinion on the policy of pre-emptive war....sorry, not your department pal.

A former foreign service agent giving his opinion on the assertiveness of the remaining "dominate power", the US. Note: As soon as someone uses the word "neocon" you know his political bias.

A white house counsel for Nixon(what?) telling me the current administration was exaggerating it's claims about the Iraqi regime. Maybe it's true, but this guy is hardly the authority on the issue.

Numerous opinions concerning the possesion of nuclear weapons and how they believed the administration up-played the reality. When in fact the the administration only ever stated the "possibility" to create a nuclear ability "might" exist if Saddam's regime obtained fissile material, not that he currently had anything at all.

Some moronic former foreign service member saying it was just silly to think Saddam would launch a missle from Iraq at an american city. Well, whoever said they'd do that? The whole premise was the construction on a WMD small enough to be passed from Iraqi intelligence to a terror network, then smuggled into our country to be detonated. It wouldn't take much nerve gas, detonated in a sufficiently crowded area (say a rented one-engine prop plan flown into a football game) to kill thousands of people. No ones launching missles at anyone, and to even suggest that that was the administation's argument is a lie.

Then there's the terror connection. Many people argue about the implausibility of an Iraqi-AL Qaeda connection due to secular/religious differences among other things. But it is a fact that Saddam openly supported any and all terrorist attacks commited against Israeli jews by the palestinian people by giving money to family's of succesful suicide bombers. Hamas and the Al Aqsa martyr's brigade are the main groups associated with palestinian terror. Does anyone believe there is absolutely no connection between Al-Qaeda and either of those groups? So we have, Saddam->Hamas/Al Aqsa->Al Qaeda. Lets say Saddam gives a nerve gas canister to Hamas to use in Tel Aviv, but the Hamas leadership decides to co-operate with Al Qaeda, and give them the canister to use against us. Irresponsible dictators, with lethal weapons and hatred for us are obviously a threat to us. How can anyone deny this?

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (fact), and he was supposed to destroy them in front of UN inspectors (fact). He didn't (fact).

No, don't start pointing the finger at Pres. Bush and say, "you lied to us you a hole". Ask yourself, "well, if they aren't there, where the hell did they go?"

 

[jones]

Thanks for posting. I'll try to respond to every statement.

Originally posted by Zhukov
Wow, where to begin....

Ok, to be honest, I got through about 20 minutes of it before I got sick of taking notes.

First and foremost: by completely ommiting the Clinton Administration's repeated statements concerning Saddam's possesion of WMD this particular 'film' shows its bias right out of the gate.

First of all, watching the whole video may be a good idea, I believe there are some statements in there concerning the past administrations.
And of course there is bias, they believe this admin is totally wrong, like the rest of the world.

Further, the majority of the dialogue in this 'film' is opinion. You have former CIA analysts elabortating on their ideas and opinions about the foreign policy they like best and would best like our country to follow, and former members of the foreign service giving opinions best left to CIA analysis.

I would trust guys actually on the field rather than our current administration "your either with us, or against us" policys.

One thing I simply cannot stand is the repeated statements that there was no "imminent" threat. Pres. Bush never said there was and imminent threat. It was the policy to act BEFORE there was an imminent threat. But that little distinction no matter how often explained simply will not sink into the minds of people who do not like our current President. Consequently, all I ever hear is: "well there was no imminent threat, therefore"...yeah, that's what the President said, pay attention.

Would like to see a statement from any of the administration head saying there was no imminent threat, but the possibility of one.
Heck, what evidence did they have that there was any threat?
Have you forgotten that WAR is the very last resort to a security threat? Clintons seemed to contain saddam pretty good if you ask me.

A former foreign service agent stated, in his opinion, that it was extremely unlikely the intelligence agencies would ever find enough information that would neccesitate the war. Well, the President disagreed, and he's the President, so that man's opinion is irrelevant.

What experience does the president have in national security? Oops, none. So his view is irrelivant.

A former foreign service agent giving his opinion on the assertiveness of the remaining "dominate power", the US. Note: As soon as someone uses the word "neocon" you know his political bias.

You mean neo-conservitive? Did you watch CSPAN lately? Richard pearle and other PNAC buddies basically had a comming out party for neo-cons. One of Perle's first statements were "Yes, that is the correct term" and ellaborated.
So really, you follow the neo-con approach to foreign policy.

A white house counsel for Nixon(what?) telling me the current administration was exaggerating it's claims about the Iraqi regime. Maybe it's true, but this guy is hardly the authority on the issue.

Different war, same shit.

Numerous opinions concerning the possesion of nuclear weapons and how they believed the administration up-played the reality. When in fact the the administration only ever stated the "possibility" to create a nuclear ability "might" exist if Saddam's regime obtained fissile material, not that he currently had anything at all.

There was no proof of intent, so why did we attack? cuz everyone has the possiblity of getting nuclear material.

Some moronic former foreign service member saying it was just silly to think Saddam would launch a missle from Iraq at an american city. Well, whoever said they'd do that? The whole premise was the construction on a WMD small enough to be passed from Iraqi intelligence to a terror network, then smuggled into our country to be detonated. It wouldn't take much nerve gas, detonated in a sufficiently crowded area (say a rented one-engine prop plan flown into a football game) to kill thousands of people. No ones launching missles at anyone, and to even suggest that that was the administation's argument is a lie.

The bush administration said iraq had obtained alluminum missile tubes that could be used to strike us.

Then there's the terror connection. Many people argue about the implausibility of an Iraqi-AL Qaeda connection due to secular/religious differences among other things. But it is a fact that Saddam openly supported any and all terrorist attacks commited against Israeli jews by the palestinian people by giving money to family's of succesful suicide bombers. Hamas and the Al Aqsa martyr's brigade are the main groups associated with palestinian terror. Does anyone believe there is absolutely no connection between Al-Qaeda and either of those groups? So we have, Saddam->Hamas/Al Aqsa->Al Qaeda. Lets say Saddam gives a nerve gas canister to Hamas to use in Tel Aviv, but the Hamas leadership decides to co-operate with Al Qaeda, and give them the canister to use against us. Irresponsible dictators, with lethal weapons and hatred for us are obviously a threat to us. How can anyone deny this?

That was not the case for war. But nice argument, what was that from? weekly standard? Oh who am i kidding, it is, i saw it, but you probly didnt get it directly from them. But as the Bush and friends said it themselves(NOW), Iraq has no connection(in any way) to al qaeda.

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (fact), and he was supposed to destroy them in front of UN inspectors (fact). He didn't (fact).

Heh, and WHEN did he have these weapons? 80's? early 90's? Most of those weapons(we gave him), didnt last months, let alone 10 years. If watched the whole movie you would understand that.
And did he actually have the intent to strike us before we started bombing? I dont think so, why would he do that? He already got his but whooped on in gulf war.

No, don't start pointing the finger at Pres. Bush and say, "you lied to us you a hole". Ask yourself, "well, if they aren't there, where the hell did they go?"

Maybe he already used them all in 80s, and some more in gulf war. But your banana republicans dont have proof of them having ANY weapons at the time of invasion.

 

[remie]

Originally posted by jones
Well its only reasonable if you ask the same from us.

..., I just want you to be bit more open minded to my threads.

Alright alright, Jones I am fairly new here. I watched the video and I have to say it is typical of the moveon.org drivel.......totally

 

[jones]

I disagree remie.

So moveon.org make you guys mad? Deal with it. Its called democracy, start writing your congressmen and urge them to participate.
You may be angry, but us pro-democracy types are EXTREMELY pist off, and we're not going to take it anymore.

 

[remie]

Originally posted by jones
I disagree remie.

So moveon.org make you guys mad? Deal with it. Its called democracy, start writing your congressmen and urge them to participate.
You may be angry, but us pro-democracy types are EXTREMELY pist off, and we're not going to take it anymore.

sorry you are pissed off jones.

1 Moveon.org doesnt make me mad, it is laughable

2 I too am for democracy, I practice it daily

3 I personally know my congressman and believe me he is participating

4 I think you are going to have to take it for just a bit longer.


Jones you need to get a life. You are mad about EVERYTHING

 

[jones]

Don't waste all that space for nothing.

A bit longer is right.

You would be horrified of how the world views right wingers as.

And Im mad about alot things because alot of things are getting F'ed up.

Just look at the economy!
And go ask your president how he thinks its doing.

You will find that he is EVER OPTIMISTIC! You know why? they're playing politics with everything we hold dear.

 

[jon_forward]

sorry you seem to be so pissed off at the world jones...not everything can or will ever be the way each and everyone of us as individuals would want it to be. and no you do not speak for the majority when you say bush must go, you sir are in a very tiny minority and that minority will only get smaller as election day nears. the "movie" is a joke.. opinions from folks dating to nixon? the folks that made this really had to dig to find people that think the same as you do. opinions are much different from facts unless the opinion is based on facts. sorry to say there isnt much as far as facts in there.

 

[jones]

You have a guy out of your own administration coming out say everything you heard was BS. Your president is a dumbass, and iraq was being planned only days after he went into office. Anybody come out of the clinton admin? telling all? oh i forgot, back in those days our goverment was transparent. not hiding under "national security" blanket of lies.

And you call that movie a joke?!! bahahaha.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4715-2004Jan9.html

If you think Im the "tiny minority" YOU GOT ANOTHER THING COMMIN! *guitar*

 

[jimnyc]

Jones, you forgot to add that the guy coming out of the administration claims to have proof but fails to release any of it to backup his claims. What does he have to lose by releasing the proof he claims he has?

 

[jones]

Well, I dont really care if he releases those documents, it would be nice, but the Bush admin always seems to give nice phone calls and next day they change their story. Hes a man who told it like it is, that all i care about. I know hes telling the truth because its exactly what we've all expected. He just got pist off and told all.

"Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said he never saw any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- President Bush's main justification for going to war -- and was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis. "

You guys are going to deny any wrong doing, even after Cheney , rummy, wolfo, and rove are convicted of treason.
Why u even care?

"a blind man in a room full of deaf people," already knew this too.

 

[jimnyc]

Sorry, there has been zero proof of what he has said. I tend to deal with reality and facts speak louder. When he releases the facts I might be swayed a bit. If he refuses to it will only make him look like a petty whiner with sour grapes. So far, that's all it appears to be.

 

[jones]

Sour grapes sour grapes, wtf. who cares.

I don't need him to release the documents to prove what he said, he said it, thats already proven. now Im believing your admin official, and you don't believe him. GJ

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Sour grapes sour grapes, wtf. who cares.

So you don't care if he may be lying because he's angry? Way to go, Jones! I see factual evidence isn't something you seek, you just seek things to bash with regardless of the truth.

I don't need him to release the documents to prove what he said, he said it, thats already proven.

This makes no sense and you are showing bias. Making decisions based on bias is stupid. I suppose it would be ok for me to say it's a fact that WMD existed in Iraq and it is irrefutable. After all, it's been said, that's already been proven.

 

[jones]

Of course WMD existed in iraq, but its not been proven they were continuing to make the substances or that they still possessed them prior to invasion. WMDs exist in saudi arabia too, should we attack them? after all, thats where the hijackers came from. But we wont, ever, because Bush family has close ties to royal family. Just wont happen.

The whole reason for going to war is based on biased opinion now. And you say I am basing my opinions on bias? shit.

I mean, yer leader is having secret energy meetings and you dont even care. Thats a fact.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/cheney_gao010625.html
"This broad grant of authority contains only one limitation: that the subject of the inquiry involve the use of public money," he continued. "It is beyond dispute that appropriated funds paid for the activities of the [Cheney task force] and thus that [its] activities are a matter related to the use of public money."

Do you watch whitehouse press briefings? Simple scottie is good at his job, fun to watch the lying pig dodge questions. Its so obvious.

 

[jimnyc]

I'm not debating with you further. I might be tempted to scour the net for conservative conspiracy theories. I'll then present them as fact and state it must be the truth because someone already stated it.

You believe it if you choose to, no one is stopping you, but blatantly stating that you don't care if the truth comes out or not and that you've already made your mind up is wearing blinders. And before you say it, no, I am not wearing them myself. I listen to facts presented from both sides and then formulate my own opinions. I've condemned many things from the current administration once the full facts surfaced.

Your bias and theories have clouded your judgement to the point that you could care less about the truth.

 

[jones]

Ya< and Im actually working on that if you believe it.

What bothers me is that 'you people' seemingly arent critical of this administration, at all.

Ya lets not drag this out, we both know it usually goes nowhere.