Who else is angry bin laden isn't..

[XaosLegend]

Who else is angry Bin Laden isn't dead or being tortured in US custody yet?

Here's a really good article on why we didn't get him in the first place. It talks about the details of how the planning immediately began for the Iraq war and scuandered any chance we had of an easy catch of the prick.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/view Article/19076

Beyond this article which is superb, what's with this nonsense that we cant go into pakistan and just ferret out the caves until we get the SOB? If they can't do it for political reasons step aside and let us take the blame (were good at that anyway) and go IRON MAN all over thier cave hiding out asses.

I'm fed up, show me the terrorist, help me help you you useless republicans!

[adrshepard]

At 10/10/08 05:34 PM, XaosLegend wrote: Who else is angry Bin Laden isn't dead or being tortured in US custody yet?

Here's a really good article on why we didn't get him in the first place. It talks about the details of how the planning immediately began for the Iraq war and scuandered any chance we had of an easy catch of the prick.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/view Article/19076

Beyond this article which is superb, what's with this nonsense that we cant go into pakistan and just ferret out the caves until we get the SOB? If they can't do it for political reasons step aside and let us take the blame (were good at that anyway) and go IRON MAN all over thier cave hiding out asses.

I'm fed up, show me the terrorist, help me help you you useless republicans!

This source cleverly hides the author's opinion and uncorroborated testimony between legitimate information. The news that generated this story is that the US didn't anticipate the need to block off the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and that even if it had, it would have delayed the invasion for an unacceptable period of time. Franks tried to enlist help from Musharraff, but the 10th century tribal bastards living on the border complicated things.

The spin the author tries to spin the story into meaning that Iraq had something to do with the planning. He presents the following:
There were no existing plans for an invasion of Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks and Rumsfeld objected to efforts to make them. I did not read the 9/11 Commission Report, and I don't know what Rumsfeld's reasons were. A rogue terrorist group living in a large, inaccessible country, a group that had only achieved a few bombings years earlier, probably didn't merit a full-scale invasion in his opinion.
Paul Wolfowitz had the idea that US troops seize oil fields in Iraq. The story presents this as though Wolfowitz proposed this out of nowhere for the sake of greed. A danger sign should go up in your head since the author refuses to develop this point further. That usually means the comment was taken out of context, because it is too difficult to elaborate on it without undermining the point the writer wants to make. My guess is the comment came during a meeting on potential invasion strategies. Considering the importance of oil to Iraq's economy, it would be wise to protect them from sabotage during and after the invasion.
According to some journalist with a book, there was a secret order from the President for war with Afghanistan and invasion plans against Iraq. There is no way to confirm if this order even exists, for one thing, since we only have one guy's word to go on. Secondly, considering the doubt over who was responsible for the attacks (Saddam was suspected for a while initially) I find it unlikely that Bush would commit to two wars less than a week after 9/11.

You must read carefully, young Padawan, and realize that the best writing will resonate with you not because of the truth or power of its content, but of its presentation.

[dySWN]

At 10/10/08 05:34 PM, XaosLegend wrote: Who else is angry Bin Laden isn't dead or being tortured in US custody yet?
being tortured in US custody

I chortled.

[XaosLegend]

At 10/10/08 06:17 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/10/08 05:34 PM, XaosLegend wrote: Who else is angry Bin Laden isn't dead or being tortured in US custody yet?

Here's a really good article on why we didn't get him in the first place. It talks about the details of how the planning immediately began for the Iraq war and scuandered any chance we had of an easy catch of the prick.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/view Article/19076

Beyond this article which is superb, what's with this nonsense that we cant go into pakistan and just ferret out the caves until we get the SOB? If they can't do it for political reasons step aside and let us take the blame (were good at that anyway) and go IRON MAN all over thier cave hiding out asses.

I'm fed up, show me the terrorist, help me help you you useless republicans!

This source cleverly hides the author's opinion and uncorroborated testimony between legitimate information. The news that generated this story is that the US didn't anticipate the need to block off the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and that even if it had, it would have delayed the invasion for an unacceptable period of time. Franks tried to enlist help from Musharraff, but the 10th century tribal bastards living on the border complicated things.

The spin the author tries to spin the story into meaning that Iraq had something to do with the planning. He presents the following:
There were no existing plans for an invasion of Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks and Rumsfeld objected to efforts to make them. I did not read the 9/11 Commission Report, and I don't know what Rumsfeld's reasons were. A rogue terrorist group living in a large, inaccessible country, a group that had only achieved a few bombings years earlier, probably didn't merit a full-scale invasion in his opinion.
Paul Wolfowitz had the idea that US troops seize oil fields in Iraq. The story presents this as though Wolfowitz proposed this out of nowhere for the sake of greed. A danger sign should go up in your head since the author refuses to develop this point further. That usually means the comment was taken out of context, because it is too difficult to elaborate on it without undermining the point the writer wants to make. My guess is the comment came during a meeting on potential invasion strategies. Considering the importance of oil to Iraq's economy, it would be wise to protect them from sabotage during and after the invasion.
According to some journalist with a book, there was a secret order from the President for war with Afghanistan and invasion plans against Iraq. There is no way to confirm if this order even exists, for one thing, since we only have one guy's word to go on. Secondly, considering the doubt over who was responsible for the attacks (Saddam was suspected for a while initially) I find it unlikely that Bush would commit to two wars less than a week after 9/11.

You must read carefully, young Padawan, and realize that the best writing will resonate with you not because of the truth or power of its content, but of its presentation.

despite the patronizing finale to your post Ill reply anyway.

Your entire rebuttal hinges on the idea that the administration thought that iraq was involved which unless your a real coolade-alohic you would realize they didnt by now. No they didnt want to fight 2 wars because afghanistan is only a corridor for the transport of oil whereas Iraq actually has it. I can't believe you think the Iraq war has been about anything but greed and aggressive tactical positioning. Anyhow the rest of your arguements are, "Well I don't like what that source has to say so it means nothing."

regardless of the details there should have been no hesitation, Bin Laden should have been taken down immediately, instead we decided our adventures in Iraq were more important, and that prick Bin Laden is still alive laughing at us. Btw we knew right after the attack who it was who hit us because they sent us a video telling us they did it! I guess that was an uncorroborated testimony too huh?

A warning sign should go off in your head when prudent tactical targets also happen to be highly desired resources that your hungry american military runs on, and was the industry your president's family made their riches in.

[CogSpin]

bin Laden has publicly stated that he didn't carry out 9/11.

[MultiCanimefan]

He isn't dead or being tortured yet because he never existed in the first place.

[bcdemon]

But if the US had caught Bin Laden, then they wouldn't have been able to bring their "war on terror" to the Middle East, which in turn, has created more American hating terrorist. So now they have created a circle-jerk.

Besides, Bin Laden isn't even wanted for the 9/11 attack on the WTC, not by the FBI anyway. The FBI makes no mention of the 9/11 WTC attack, but do notice how it says at the bottom "Poster Revised November 2001", so even as GW Bush was telling the world that Bin Laden was guilty of the 9/11 attack, and the need to invade Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden was paramount, the FBI didn't put the Sept 11 WTC attack on his Most Wanted poster.

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11."

[ThePretenders]

At 10/11/08 08:28 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Besides, Bin Laden isn't even wanted for the 9/11 attack on the WTC, not by the FBI anyway. The FBI makes no mention of the 9/11 WTC attack, but do notice how it says at the bottom "Poster Revised November 2001"

Interesting. I checked his profile last year and found no reference to 9/11. I doubt OBL was well enough to carry it out personally and probably a figurehead.

[TheGyro]

First off, I disagree with torture in that context, What life-saving information do you intend to get out of the man, exactly?

Second, it's entirely possible that he's dead already, I've heard several reports claiming he has problems with his kidneys (too much beer?) or was killed by the US, such as in an airstrike.

Also, to my knowledge he hasn't made a video address in a while, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

But yeah. If the bloke is alive, he should be found, proscuted under a fair trail and punished depending on the verdict, like any other mass-murderer.

[adrshepard]

At 10/10/08 07:47 PM, XaosLegend wrote:

Your entire rebuttal hinges on the idea that the administration thought that iraq was involved which unless your a real coolade-alohic you would realize they didnt by now...Anyhow the rest of your arguements are, "Well I don't like what that source has to say so it means nothing."

Members of the administration: did have suspicions about Iraq's involvement. This was also one of the claims of Richard Clarke.

Remember what I said about people spouting one liners without developing them? Why don't you go through my arguments and rebutt them individually?

regardless of the details there should have been no hesitation, Bin Laden should have been taken down immediately...

How would you have suggested that the US take him down immediately?

A warning sign should go off in your head when prudent tactical targets also happen to be highly desired resources that your hungry american military runs on, and was the industry your president's family made their riches in.

I try to base my positions on logic and reasoning rather than convenient assumptions and irrelevant associations. Perhaps you could humor me and do the same.

[freddorfman]

i'll bet you he's dead right now sitting in a cave like a skeleton with an ak47 in his hand

[ForkRobotik]

At 10/10/08 07:51 PM, Mr-Money wrote: bin Laden has publicly stated that he didn't carry out 9/11.

That's because he didn't. The CIA helped set up the organization, which is composed largely of independant cells. We saw that in iraq when zardawi pronounced himself head of iraqi al quaeda

[W31RD0]

At 10/11/08 04:30 PM, freddorfman wrote: i'll bet you he's dead right now sitting in a cave like a skeleton with an ak47 in his hand

There has actually been quite a few reports that state that he has died. I worry that come late October, Bush will reveal this knowledge (that they knew for-like-ever) in hopes of changing the election outcome.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 10/11/08 06:42 PM, W31RD0 wrote:

At 10/11/08 04:30 PM, freddorfman wrote: i'll bet you he's dead right now sitting in a cave like a skeleton with an ak47 in his hand

There has actually been quite a few reports that state that he has died. I worry that come late October, Bush will reveal this knowledge (that they knew for-like-ever) in hopes of changing the election outcome.

If Bush does that, he should totally yell "SURPRISE! Hehehe, gotcha!" And it'll be fucking priceless.

[W31RD0]

At 10/11/08 08:04 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: If Bush does that, he should totally yell "SURPRISE! Hehehe, gotcha!" And it'll be fucking priceless.

He will totally cite the capture/death as reason we should ignore the constitution and relelect him.

[Musician]

At 10/11/08 02:25 PM, adrshepard wrote: I try to base my positions on logic and reasoning

No you don't. You're realist when it's convienent to be realist, and liberalist when it's not. If you based your positions on logic and reasoning you'd realize that there are 2 alleged reasons that we entered Iraq in the first place:

1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the US and the rest of the world
2. Saddam Hussien had connections to Al Quieda and the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center

Both lacked convincing evidence. On the other end of the spectrum, entering the war in Iraq was great for US business interests. Haliburton, a company that VP Dick Cheney has strong ties to, got the contract for the reconstruction of Iraq without a bid. Big arms manufacturers got to sell their weapons to the US military. And US Oil companies got the vast majority of the Oil Contracts in the newly rebuilt Iraq.

Logic and reason would lead you to be realistic in your conclusions, which you're not being. What you're really basing your opinions off of is blind partisianship.

[XaosLegend]

At 10/12/08 02:41 AM, Musician wrote:

At 10/11/08 02:25 PM, adrshepard wrote: I try to base my positions on logic and reasoning

No you don't. You're realist when it's convienent to be realist, and liberalist when it's not. If you based your positions on logic and reasoning you'd realize that there are 2 alleged reasons that we entered Iraq in the first place:

1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the US and the rest of the world
2. Saddam Hussien had connections to Al Quieda and the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center

Both lacked convincing evidence. On the other end of the spectrum, entering the war in Iraq was great for US business interests. Haliburton, a company that VP Dick Cheney has strong ties to, got the contract for the reconstruction of Iraq without a bid. Big arms manufacturers got to sell their weapons to the US military. And US Oil companies got the vast majority of the Oil Contracts in the newly rebuilt Iraq.

Logic and reason would lead you to be realistic in your conclusions, which you're not being. What you're really basing your opinions off of is blind partisianship.

Wait theres another person on these forums who isnt a complete retard? Awsome, let's get married, you'll have to be my second spouse though, love me my sugar momma.

Anyhow I'm not really against the torture of convicted murderers, If you kill a whole bunch of people to make a political statement you deserve to to have your nuts sliced up and tea bagged into a chlorine bath, short nonlethal nails pounded into your head, your nose chopped off and maggots seeded into you wounds. You should not be allowed to rot in prison after you do these things to people, and execution is only almost good enough punishment. Some murderers I'd be more lenient with, like retards (sorry Bush doesn't quite qualify) and the victims of physical abuse. For me if you conduct a war of aggression, greed and empire that winds up killing in excess of 1 million innocent people I place you above Bin Laden in my ranking of evil douchebags that need to be tortured to death, I think society needs to do this as part of it's legal system and don't condone vigilantism or anything like that but I would like to see Americans hold elites accountable for what a vagrant on the street would be locked up for the reat of his life if he commited 1/ 10000000000000000000000000000th of the crime.

Anyway off the point, I'm still angry as hell that Bin Laden is free or has been allowed to die free, also yeah the conspiracy stuff is interesting to speculate about sometimes, but theres things that you can strongly believe are probably true and then there are things that are reaching far too much, A good test to see if a conspiracy is plausible or not is wether or not you can interchange the details a good amount and come up with a multitude of different scenarious that are all just as likely as the initial theory. Of course people who think that conspiracies don't exist are retards. Has anyone for certian ever been assasinated by more than a lone gunman? (If you don't like US history examples look up south american political assasinations.) If the andwer is yes, than conspiracies exist, it's wether there is a sufficient proponderence of evidence to make it more likely than anything else that you aught to tout it as the truth not before, and of course always be open to the possibility that you are wrong(This doesn't mean you can't get angry about something youre nearly sure is true, if you couldn't than you couldn't really do anything in life).

[bcdemon]

At 10/12/08 04:26 AM, RadioactiveRabbit wrote:

At 10/10/08 07:51 PM, Mr-Money wrote: bin Laden has publicly stated that he didn't carry out 9/11.

You need to educate yourself before you spout retarded bullshit.

Good sounding advice, care to use it yourself? Bin Laden did in fact state that he was innocent of the WTC attack. The FBI, CIA and the federal government have no evidence of Bin committing the act.
Check out page 190 of this page. Then post your rebuttal with sources please.

Point 2: USA invaded Afghanistan apparently to find Bin Laden and bring him to justice for the 9/11 WTC attack. But there is/was no evidence to suggest Bin Laden is guilty. So why invade Afghanistan? Unocal, Caspian energy reserves and pipelines, that's why.

[adrshepard]

At 10/12/08 02:41 AM, Musician wrote: Both lacked convincing evidence. On the other end of the spectrum, entering the war in Iraq was great for US business interests. Haliburton, a company that VP Dick Cheney has strong ties to, got the contract for the reconstruction of Iraq without a bid. Big arms manufacturers got to sell their weapons to the US military. And US Oil companies got the vast majority of the Oil Contracts in the newly rebuilt Iraq.

Convincing enough for who? The decision to grant Bush the power to use military action against Iraq was made by a solid majority of Congress. Apparently Congress believed there was a threat that merited military action if diplomacy failed (which it did). Even Hans Blix, a vocal opponent of the war, admitted that Iraq was not being forthcoming about its claimed cessation of its WMD program (this is stated in a speech to the security council in march 2003, the transcript I cannot seem to find but I posted before in a recent thread here.)

In addition, the Government Accounting Office cleared (page 8) the no-bid contract for Halliburton because it the contract rules permit limited competition awards when the needs are urgent and the capable companies few. Even on the anti-halliburton sites you will not find proof of cronyism at the executive level, only accusations that Halliburton hasn't performed well in some respects, which is immaterial here.

The fact that arms manufacturers profit from the Iraq war is not evidence of profiteering or executive corruption. The end result (these companies making money) would be identical regardless if there was corruption or not.

Logic and reason would lead you to be realistic in your conclusions, which you're not being. What you're really basing your opinions off of is blind partisianship.

Assuming that there was corruption involving Cheney and Halliburton simply because of association is not realism, it is blind suspicion. Assuming that the Iraq war was a case of arms profiteering simply because there were arms contracts is obtuse and reflects a lazy mind.

[Musician]

At 10/12/08 01:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: Convincing enough for who?

The world in general. The evidence that the Bush Administration submitted to the UN was notably weak. Failing to convince 3 out of the 5 security council members to vote in favor of a UN operation against Iraq (one of which was France).

The decision to grant Bush the power to use military action against Iraq was made by a solid majority of Congress. Apparently Congress believed there was a threat that merited military action if diplomacy failed (which it did).

The Republicans had the majority of congress at the time and would of course support most of anything passed down from a Republican president. So the Republicans were in the bag either way. The Democrats, possibly mislead by cherry picked/dramatized information, possibly bought out by personal interests. Either way, the evidence seemed to become much less "convincing" the further away from the US it got.

Even Hans Blix, a vocal opponent of the war, admitted that Iraq was not being forthcoming about its claimed cessation of its WMD program (this is stated in a speech to the security council in march 2003, the transcript I cannot seem to find but I posted before in a recent thread here.)

Of course not, Iraq didn't want it's opponents to know it was un-armed. All the more reason why the information from the Iraqi defectors shouldn't have been trusted over actual investigative reports from UN weapon inspectors. Of course that's the whole basis of the accusations of cherry picking. The Bush Administration built the case that they wanted to be true, not one that necessarily was true.

In addition, the Government Accounting Office cleared (page 8) the no-bid contract for Halliburton because it the contract rules permit limited competition awards when the needs are urgent and the capable companies few.

So it was cleared legally, that doesn't mean that there was no corruption in the writing of the no bid contract. There are other companies out there that could have made a bid on such a contract, especially if the contract had been split. So why give such preference to Halliburton?

The fact that arms manufacturers profit from the Iraq war is not evidence of profiteering or executive corruption. The end result (these companies making money) would be identical regardless if there was corruption or not.

Arguably, there might not have been a war at all if it hadn't have been for the US Business interests involved. So no, the end result would not be the same.

Assuming that there was corruption involving Cheney and Halliburton simply because of association is not realism, it is blind suspicion.

Hardly. I don't assume corruption involving the reconstruction of Iraq simply because of the connection between Cheney and Halliburton. I assume corruption because of the very odd no-bid contract that was awarded to Haliburton AND because of Cheney's connections.

Assuming that the Iraq war was a case of arms profiteering simply because there were arms contracts is obtuse and reflects a lazy mind.

You're naive or stupid if you consider it unthinkable that a company would try open a new market for it's product. You're also naive or stupid if you don't believe politicians can be bought off. Thinking that arms dealers don't have some lobby for every potential conflict (aka ever potential business opportunity) is the real sign of a lazy mind.

[Wegra]

Wow, I haven't heard any news of that guy in like 3-4 years!

[MultiCanimefan]

At 10/12/08 04:26 AM, RadioactiveRabbit wrote:

At 10/10/08 11:20 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: He isn't dead or being tortured yet because he never existed in the first place.

There are countless videos and messages. You saying that is like me saying you've never existed when there is overwhelming evidence that you do.

There are also countless ways to tell if someone is joking. Like, I don't know, the "Elated" smiley icon for these forums, which I used when I said that.

Go back to your Zeitgeist and Loose Change, you can go live in your delusional world with no one to challenge you on those kinds of forums, but no one will take you seriously here with insane bullshit.

I've never watched those two movies, and I also post intelligently here on these forums, except for the one you're replying to, which was obviously satire; I'm sure if I put "Lol" in there somewhere you'd be able to tell right of the bat, but I thought the smiley was enough.

Also, saying an organization like Al Qaeda doesn't exist is like saying terrorists don't exist. But go in to a Wahhabi mosque and pretend you're a devout Muslim for a few months and I'm pretty damn sure you'll meet some people who are a part of the Islamic terrorist facilitation network throughout the world.

I never said Al Qaeda never existed. Both Bin Laden and his organization do exist.

[adrshepard]

At 10/12/08 01:46 PM, Musician wrote:

The world in general. The evidence that the Bush Administration submitted to the UN was notably weak. Failing to convince 3 out of the 5 security council members to vote in favor of a UN operation against Iraq (one of which was France).

You are viewing the Security Council as an objective body, which it is not. It is composed of vastly different countries with different interests. Russia, France, and China had little or nothing to gain by the Iraq invasion. They certaintly wouldn't achieve the security gains the US would, since these countries would certainly not be those targeted by WMDs or Islamic terrorism.

The Democrats, possibly mislead by cherry picked/dramatized information, possibly bought out by personal interests. Either way, the evidence seemed to become much less "convincing" the further away from the US it got.

There is no evidence of cherry-picking the information. There were some omissions regarding the level of certainty of some evidence, but that was not the result of interference from the executive branch.
The evidence was convincing enough for over 30, I think the count was, nations to participate in the invasion.

Of course not, Iraq didn't want it's opponents to know it was un-armed. All the more reason why the information from the Iraqi defectors shouldn't have been trusted over actual investigative reports from UN weapon inspectors. Of course that's the whole basis of the accusations of cherry picking. The Bush Administration built the case that they wanted to be true, not one that necessarily was true.

Your first two sentences do not match your last two, because it assumes the administration had an active role in shaping the evidence or making the case. Two key presentations, the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, and Colin Powell's speech to the UN, were crafted almost entirely by the CIA and other agencies, and not the Bush administration. I suggest you read these excerpts from a 2004 senate committee report on prewar Iraq Intelligence to get an idea of what was going on.
The creation of the NIE:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/crepo rts/pdf/s108-301/sec11.pdf
The creation of Powell's speech:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/crepo rts/pdf/s108-301/sec7.pdf
Claims of administration pressure on analysts' conclusions:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/crepo rts/pdf/s108-301/sec9.pdf
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/crepo rts/pdf/s108-301/sec14.pdf

So it was cleared legally, that doesn't mean that there was no corruption in the writing of the no bid contract. There are other companies out there that could have made a bid on such a contract, especially if the contract had been split. So why give such preference to Halliburton?

Halliburton was the only company deemed capable of performing the tasks in the required amount of time. Opening a bid would only increase the chances that an unqualified firm would promise to meet the requirements for a low price only to fail later (sort of like the mortgage crisis).

Arguably, there might not have been a war at all if it hadn't have been for the US Business interests involved. So no, the end result would not be the same.

I don't understand what business interests you are talking about. If you're trying to say that oil comes into play, you're right, of course. The problem of WMDs and terrorism is augmented by their presence near a highly strategic resource.

Hardly. I don't assume corruption involving the reconstruction of Iraq simply because of the connection between Cheney and Halliburton. I assume corruption because of the very odd no-bid contract that was awarded to Haliburton AND because of Cheney's connections.

I've already explained the no-bid contract, and you haven't given any evidence of Cheney's connections being involved.

You're naive or stupid if you consider it unthinkable that a company would try open a new market for it's product. You're also naive or stupid if you don't believe politicians can be bought off. Thinking that arms dealers don't have some lobby for every potential conflict (aka ever potential business opportunity) is the real sign of a lazy mind.

Then I would say the burden is on you to show that it occurred, rather than on me to try to disprove whatever secret payoffs or relationships existed. You're employing the typical conspiracy-theory approach of deducing evidence from an assumed conclusion as opposed to reaching a conclusion from existing evidence.

[Musician]

At 10/12/08 06:41 PM, adrshepard wrote: You are viewing the Security Council as an objective body, which it is not. It is composed of vastly different countries with different interests. Russia, France, and China had little or nothing to gain by the Iraq invasion. They certaintly wouldn't achieve the security gains the US would, since these countries would certainly not be those targeted by WMDs or Islamic terrorism.

You're operating under the false assumption that France, Russia, and China aren't concerned with nuclear proliferation. Islamic Terrorism specifically might not pose as much of a threat against Russia and China as it would to the US... but any smaller nation acquiring WMDs poses a serious threat to all the powers that be. It also must be noted that Russia, China, and France were not completely closed to the idea of taking action against Iraq, rather they wanted the weapons inspectors to provide some solid evidence (which they didn't) before they made that decision.

There is no evidence of cherry-picking the information.

Despite the fact that the Bush administration favored shaky testimonies from Iraqi defectors over actual material evidence, there's also the whole controversy of a Senior CIA Officer accusing the Bush Administration of distorting the facts in their favor. That's pretty convincing evidence if you ask me.

There were some omissions regarding the level of certainty of some evidence, but that was not the result of interference from the executive branch.

You obviously don't understand that the intelligence community (the CIA in particular) is governed predominately by orders from the Executive Branch. That aside, "some omissions regarding the level of certainty of some evidence" is a larger offense then you give it credit for. For example, the omissions regarding the uncertainty of aluminum tubes being used for the construction of WMDs was deliberately misleading.

The evidence was convincing enough for over 30, I think the count was, nations to participate in the invasion.

None of which ultimately had to contribute very much to the war effort. Most contributions from other nations were more symbolic of their dedication to the US as an ally than their actual belief that Iraq posed a threat.

Your first two sentences do not match your last two, because it assumes the administration had an active role in shaping the evidence or making the case. Two key presentations, the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, and Colin Powell's speech to the UN, were crafted almost entirely by the CIA and other agencies, and not the Bush administration. I suggest you read these excerpts from a 2004 senate committee report on prewar Iraq Intelligence to get an idea of what was going on.

The Executive Branch more or less has direct control over the intelligence community. Saying that the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and Powells speech were "crafted" by the CIA does not mean that the Bush Administration had no influence on them whatsoever.

Halliburton was the only company deemed capable of performing the tasks in the required amount of time. Opening a bid would only increase the chances that an unqualified firm would promise to meet the requirements for a low price only to fail later (sort of like the mortgage crisis).

Like I said before, the contract could have been split (which it eventually was later in the war) so that smaller companies could have handled different areas of the reconstruction. Giving everything to Halliburton put the government at an inherit disadvantage. Practically it made no sense to give the entire contract to Halliburton.

I don't understand what business interests you are talking about. If you're trying to say that oil comes into play, you're right, of course. The problem of WMDs and terrorism is augmented by their presence near a highly strategic resource.

Where there's a business there's a business interest. For example I mentioned arms manufacturers. When there's a war, arms manufacturers get to sell weapons to the US army. Thus a war is a business interest to arms manufacturers. Iraq was a special case in that it called for an occupation and reconstruction of a country. So for example, if a building gets blown up in Iraq, it means that a business somewhere in the US (Halliburton for example) gets paid to rebuild it. This war was one gigantic plethora of business interests, the least of which was not Oil, the vast majority of which is being contracted out to US Oil companies.

I've already explained the no-bid contract, and you haven't given any evidence of Cheney's connections being involved.

Halliburton was awarded a large contract that was generally against the best interests of the United States in that didn't create an environment of competition what so ever and gave the US government less power in negotiating price. It was a bad deal. The bill could have been put up for bid or split, but it wasn't... even though doing something like that would have been better for the US government. So why didn't they? It doesn't make any sense at all until you realize that Vice President Dick Cheney was formerly a CEO at Halliburton.

It's that logic and reasoning you claim to be so crazy about. It's the ability to put two and two together.

Then I would say the burden is on you to show that it occurred, rather than on me to try to disprove whatever secret payoffs or relationships existed. You're employing the typical conspiracy-theory approach of deducing evidence from an assumed conclusion as opposed to reaching a conclusion from existing evidence.

Funny since that's exactly what you're doing. You're assuming that the Bush Administration was completely benevolent in it's intentions for Iraq and building an argument around that.

And obviously neither one of us can undeniably prove the other one wrong. But we can both look at the evidence logically and see the obvious conclusion.

1. The Bush Administration had a lot to gain from the Invasion of Iraq (business interests)

and

2. There is evidence that the Bush Administration deliberately misled congress and the UN in it's presentation of the facts:
a. Prestigious members of the intelligence community (Hans Blix, Paul Pillar, among others) accusing the Bush Administration of distorting and even fabricating evidence.
b. Notable omissions from evidence presented (aluminum tubes)
c. Notably including evidence that was proven fraudulent before presentation (yellow cakes niger)

If you were really a man of logic and reason like you claim to be you would be able to put these two together and realize that what really happened differs greatly from the official story. So are you really a man of logic and reason?

[adrshepard]

At 10/12/08 09:02 PM, Musician wrote: but any smaller nation acquiring WMDs poses a serious threat to all the powers that be. It also must be noted that Russia, China, and France were not completely closed to the idea of taking action against Iraq, rather they wanted the weapons inspectors to provide some solid evidence (which they didn't) before they made that decision.

Their idea of "action" was to pass sanctions the way they had over the past 13 years. Anything beyond that would require too much sacrifice.

I suppose your view explains why Russia is assisting Iran with its nuclear program, right? If a nuclear-armed Iran poses such huge risks to them, why is Russia helping build nuclear power plants and selling anti-aircraft missles to defend them?

Despite the fact that the Bush administration favored shaky testimonies from Iraqi defectors over actual material evidence, there's also the whole controversy of a Senior CIA Officer accusing the Bush Administration of distorting the facts in their favor. That's pretty convincing evidence if you ask me.

There you go, blaming it on the Bush, as if all the intelligence agencies gave him defector accounts that they said were unreliable, to which Bush told them to screw themselves. You don't have any evidence that Bush or anyone else in the administration knew that the evidence was unreliable.

The testimony from the CIA officer is interesting. He can't provide actual proof, so he asserts that every non-Adminstration person of influence or responsibility unconciously allowed themselves to be corrupted by the fact that the BUsh administration wanted to be sure about Saddam's links to Al-Queda. Because he can't prove a conspiracy, he wants us to believe that the administration was so devious, so cunning, that it co-opted hundreds of managers and executives into becoming zombie-like slaves, passing on information as legitimate which all reason said was not.

He then gives his own personal policy analysis on what the intelligence should have meant. Unfortunately for him, it is not his responsibility or area of expertise to devise national policy.

Even more interesting is that there is no mention of him or his complaints in the senate report. Since his job was to coordinate intelligence from all agencies about Iraq, one would think he would be interviewed. Where is his testimony?

For example, the omissions regarding the uncertainty of aluminum tubes being used for the construction of WMDs was deliberately misleading.

Except for the fact that these omissions were not ordered by anyone in the Bush administration. The intelligence agencies themselves produced the NIE, and during that time, according to the Senate report, "At the meeting on September 25, 2002, both the CIA and the DIA supported the NIE assessment that the aluminum tubes were intended for Iraq's nuclear program and were evidence that Iraq was starting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program." (page 95) The Department of Energy and the State Department's intelligence branch disagreed with this analysis, however, and this was noted in the NIE. They did believe Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

None of which ultimately had to contribute very much to the war effort. Most contributions from other nations were more symbolic of their dedication to the US as an ally than their actual belief that Iraq posed a threat.

Impossible to determine. You do not know the true motivations of their support. A willingness to contribute limited by capability is no less likely.

The Executive Branch more or less has direct control over the intelligence community. Saying that the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and Powells speech were "crafted" by the CIA does not mean that the Bush Administration had no influence on them whatsoever.

Except that there is no evidence of manipulative influence.

Like I said before, the contract could have been split (which it eventually was later in the war) so that smaller companies could have handled different areas of the reconstruction. Giving everything to Halliburton put the government at an inherent disadvantage. Practically it made no sense to give the entire contract to Halliburton.

I don't know the details of what a reasonable split would be, or if it would be possible. I would have to know the terms of the contract to see what was covered, along with testimony from those involved in the drafting to understand what the considerations were. Frankly, I don't feel like finding those things this minute. Remind me in the next post and I will.

This war was one gigantic plethora of business interests, the least of which was not Oil, the vast majority of which is being contracted out to US Oil companies.

That is true, but how would that not be similar for any war not fought on US soil?

Halliburton was awarded a large contract that was generally against the best interests of the United States in that didn't create an environment of competition what so ever and gave the US government less power in negotiating price. It was a bad deal.

As a long term strategy, yes. But that doesn't dispute the notion that Halliburton was the only company that could be relied on to provide the services in a hurry.

Funny since that's exactly what you're doing. You're assuming that the Bush Administration was completely benevolent in it's intentions for Iraq and building an argument around that.

I will continue to believe the claims of a large, bureacratic, and heavily observed government of civil servants and elected officials until I have reason not to. This reason must not only be a plausible alternative but completely disprove the stated reason.

1. The Bush Administration had a lot to gain from the Invasion of Iraq (business interests)

I thought the businesses had a lot to gain, not the Bush administration. You could argue that it would promote future campaign contributions, but that would imply some sort of selection/calculation process going on, such that starting a war to get support of weapons companies would be more practical than supporting looser financial or environmental regulation. And what about the companies who donate heavily to the RNC that weren't contracted for the Iraq War?

2. There is evidence that the Bush Administration deliberately misled congress and the UN in it's presentation of the facts:
a. Prestigious members of the intelligence community (Hans Blix, Paul Pillar, among others) accusing the Bush Administration of distorting and even fabricating evidence.

It takes nothing to make accusations. Only proper investigations can be deemed credible.

c. Notably including evidence that was proven fraudulent before presentation (yellow cakes niger)

Check pages 72 to 83 in the Senate report. You will see that the problem lay in communications difficulties and oversights between the intelligence agencies and not in manipulation by the administration. The critical sections of the President's speeches regarding yellowcake and Niger were approved by the CIA.

[OxyClean]

At 10/10/08 05:34 PM, XaosLegend wrote: Who else is angry Bin Laden isn't dead or being tortured in US custody yet?

Here's a really good article on why we didn't get him in the first place. It talks about the details of how the planning immediately began for the Iraq war and scuandered any chance we had of an easy catch of the prick.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/view Article/19076

Beyond this article which is superb, what's with this nonsense that we cant go into pakistan and just ferret out the caves until we get the SOB? If they can't do it for political reasons step aside and let us take the blame (were good at that anyway) and go IRON MAN all over thier cave hiding out asses.

I'm fed up, show me the terrorist, help me help you you useless republicans!

I'm pretty sure Bin Laden is already dead, rotting in some cave. The amount of carpet bombing we did in the Afghan mountain ranges was enough to kill Osama 20 times over. If he isn't dead, he's doing a really good job of not getting got by the local populace considering there's a 50 million dollar bounty on his head. His "high command" if you want to call them that have been making propaganda videos with Osama supposedly in them (Of course, they're really good video editors. They've made videos where it looks like an insurgent is going under an "un-guarded" Bradley Linebacker, planting a bomb then blowing it up which is the most laughable BS I've ever seen any terrorist put together. Would you be able to tell if some burnt, charred torso belonged to a late Osama Bin Laden? Me either. :)

[HogWashSoup]

I really dont care about him.

[XaosLegend]

I think it's great that the two of you have decided to take this one facet that relates to the forum's original topic and torture it to death, lol, reminds me of me when I'm really into the facet. I don't personally think that there's any real dispute as to whether Bush Cheney and the rest of the goons mislead the American people, it's by how much. (Which I think is quite alot) It's clear that adrshepard is not a stupid person, he's just incredibly attatched to being a devout republican. I've heard some brilliant debated by christians about how science proves that god exists, and yet in the end their arguements do not hold up and require that you want to believe the arguement for it to seem credible to you. I think adrsheppard uses that fair sized brain of his to look and look and look for evidence of the righteousness of his leaders, to torture any shadow of a doubt of this facet or that facet, when if he were nuetral to these leaders in the first place he like most other people would have long ago used his intelligence to lock in his understanding of how evil these people are, and how evil what they have done is.

[slothfromabove]

Who else is angry Bin Laden isn't dead or being tortured in US custody yet?

chances are he is dead as he had some god awful liver disease that was slowly killing him.
And to satisfy your hunger for blood it would have been a slow and painful death

[adrshepard]

It's actually simpler than you think, Xaos. It all boils down to a simple philosophical choice. I can either believe that people are generally out to "get me", to screw me over, and cause me harm, or I can believe the opposite.

With the first choice, I take precautions on everything, I limit the risks that come with exposure to other people, I never trust anything I can't verify myself. With sufficient proof, I may accept that an individual person or few people are exceptions to this rule and are good people. I may never be robbed, exploited, or manipulated, but it comes at the cost of enjoying the benefits of cooperation with t he rest of society, such as the marketplace (because I fear being cheated) or public services (because I fear being set-up, indoctrinated, or discriminated against).

With the second choice, the opposite is true. I may be more vulnerable but I don't make any sacrifices. I also don't assume guilt without evidence (in total disregard of associations or stereotypes, ideally). That's the case here with Bush, and I should hope I'm capable of sincerely applying this to everyone.