If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you actually read the Padhoretz article?

[/ QUOTE ] (It's Podhoretz, for crying out loud.) Yes, I did. Why do you need to remind me? I am not too fond of crap.

[ QUOTE ]
It basically says that a multitude of intelligence organizations supported the belief that Iraq possessed WMDs.

[/ QUOTE ] I know what the intelligence was (at least, I know those parts that were made public; I'm no spook). And the intelligence was far from convincing. Of course, to understand this you need to get rid of your colored glasses. Something which a neo-con is usually unable to do.

[ QUOTE ]
You believe that the admin. acts on foreign policy based on what is good for Israel and not the US, which is complete insanity.

[/ QUOTE ] Not foreign policy in general and not the whole foreign policy. Of course, not!

But as far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yes, absolutely, the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[ QUOTE ]
You ... fail to acknowledge the extremely close relationship the US has had with Israel through many other administrations, Democrat and Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh, don't you worry. I am not pinning that to Bush or even the GOP exclusively at all! The blind, fanatical, irresponsible support of Israel by the United States was given for a solid fifty years and more. This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

[SinCityGuy]

Yeah, the libs were privy to the same manufactured intelligence that the White House was.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
You gave ONE supposed example of an out of context quote without citing the source or the entire paragraph. And if the rest of the quotes are legit then the arguement in the article I quoted makes perfect sense. Denying it without proof to the contrary won't make your view so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, in my first response, i gave THREE examples, which is all i have/had the time or inclination to do... but, you're beggining to understand, so i'll give it one more shot:

Bush's detractors are NOT claiming that he was lying EVERY TIME he made a statement about WMD in iraq; Rather, they accuse the administration of making SPECIFIC statements that they knew to be untrue... here's half-decent link on the subject: here...

An example from the link provided:
[ QUOTE ]
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003

[/ QUOTE ]

and the evidence that seems to indicate that this is a lie:

[ QUOTE ]
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

[/ QUOTE ]

above is a cited quote, making a specific claim, and a cited peice of evidence disproving that claim. now, that site is guilty of some of the same things that your submission is- see if you can see what's a legit peice of evidence and what's misleading fluff...

SO:

only an idiot would dispute that Saddam did at one time have WMDs, nuclear aspirations, and so on... he USED 'em on the kurds, for example, a fact which is beyond (reasonable) debate. Clinton was telling the truth in '98 (not about his cigar fetish, of course), hell, Bush told the truth about a lot of iraq's shenanigans, but when it came time to find a way to convince the public and the congress that an invasion was justified... there are definitly... irregularities:

Uranium from Niger...
Aluminum tubes...
...and other claims that had been DISPROVED at the time that bush& co. made them.

wheras, ALL of the quotes YOUR submission provided contained NO specifics... other than Bill Clinton's, which was citing iraqi ADMISSIONS. there is a HUGE difference that SHOULD be obvious.... my point:

In order to avoid being a tool of the propagandists and reckless partisans that would rather lead ignorant sheep than have an educated electorate, one must be able to see through the kind of manipulative psudeo-logic that the decievers rely upon to lower the level of discourse and decieve the uninformed. don't be a sheep, be a shepard.

[elscorcho768]

Norman Podhoretz. There you go. I know how to spell his name but thanks for pointing that out for me. You are awesome.

If you read the article correctly, you would understand the point was that many intelligence agencies past and present believed what Bush believed. He didn't lie or mislead the people. He acted on intelligence that so far has been proven incorrect (not all of it; see the uranium in Niger claim) I don't know how you don't think the intelligence was convincing. Clinton thought it did in 1998 when he bombed Iraq. The Kurds knew Saddam had used WMDs and had the potential to do it again. But forgive me for straying into this topic.

[ QUOTE ]
I know what the intelligence was (at least, I know those parts that were made public; I'm no spook). And the intelligence was far from convincing. Of course, to understand this you need to get rid of your colored glasses. Something which a neo-con is usually unable to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for having an open mind. I love how someone with a differing view on an issue must be delusional or simply biased. I read the article and came to the conclusion that the intelligence was faulty, bush as of now has been wrong about wmds being in iraq, but he did not purposely mislead the american people. multiple high level commissions on this topic support my conclusions. but i must be delusional. theres no way i just have a different opinion based on credited information. You disagree yet you probably have credible info to support your position.

[ QUOTE ]
But as far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, yes, absolutely, the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3. 2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez. Also lets not forget the concessions made by Israel (land for peace) because of direct pressure from the US.

[ QUOTE ]
Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[/ QUOTE ]


Are your serious? Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America. No good could have come out of it and Israel knows it. Israel has its faults but bringing up this event makes me wonder about your true feelings about Israel. Also, you say Sharon spat in the US face by rejecting the roadmap, yet you say nothing of every instance where Arab governments openly call for the destruction of the US.

Since it is on my mind, where was your condemnation of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for calling for the annihilation of Israel. I suppose you wouldnt mind.

[ QUOTE ]
This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, because Israel exists, it is a destablizing factor in the world. To say we should remove our support for israel to appease the arab world is insane and morally reprehensible. Firstly, it would quite possibly lead to the end of israel and you know this. Second, if you think that removing support for israel will stabilize that region, then why not submit to the will of the islamic world that wants women removed from society, all non muslims delegated to the lowest class or worse, and america destroyed. that would stablize the world so why not do it. You want increased support for palestinians and other arab countries and decreased support for israel. so you basically want increased support for countries that have far worse human rights records than israel and a government (palestinian) that steals from its people and aids terrorism. Now tell me how I'm completely wrong because I am conservative and support israel.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well you basically answered your own question, the US was close to WWIII if the Soviets decided to intervene against Israel in the Yom Kippur, that's why the US pushed so hard for a ceasefire. As for the Egyptian troops in the Sinai, Israel tried and tried to take them out for good but couldn't and decided to accept the ceasefire, along with a mutual withdraw from the front lines.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez.


[/ QUOTE ]

An act of pure agression against Egypt with a flimsy pretext of the nationalized canal to give Israel, UK and France an excuse to take out Nasser. We objected (imagine: juuust as we get ready to harshly condemn the Soviets for intervening in Hungary, our western allies do the same to Egypt) and demanded they withdraw and yes that was our least pro-Israel moment.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even at its most preposterous. Even when Israel practicaly spat at the face of America. Need I remind you what Ariel Sharon made of Bush's all-important Roadmap? Need I bring USS Liberty again, for you to see the folly?

[/ QUOTE ]


Are your serious? Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America. No good could have come out of it and Israel knows it. Israel has its faults but bringing up this event makes me wonder about your true feelings about Israel.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was very unlikely to be an accident considering how distinctly different looking the Liberty was from anything Egypt owned, with the attack occuring in broad daylight. It was possibly a deliberate attack on the local US intelliegence ship to cover Israel continuted offensive in Syria. Israel had refused international declared ceasefire AFTER all the Arab states had accepted it, prefering to continue their sucessful invasion. Many US officials eventually admitted that they did not buy the Israeli explaination, but at the time most were just happy it wasn't the Soviets.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This American support for the most de-stablizing factor in the world scene, Israel, has been a bi-partisan folly, all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, because Israel exists, it is a destablizing factor in the world. To say we should remove our support for israel to appease the arab world is insane and morally reprehensible. Firstly, it would quite possibly lead to the end of israel and you know this. Second, if you think that removing support for israel will stabilize that region, then why not submit to the will of the islamic world that wants women removed from society, all non muslims delegated to the lowest class or worse, and america destroyed. that would stablize the world so why not do it. You want increased support for palestinians and other arab countries and decreased support for israel. so you basically want increased support for countries that have far worse human rights records than israel and a government (palestinian) that steals from its people and aids terrorism. Now tell me how I'm completely wrong because I am conservative and support israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

True the creation of Israel proved extremely distabalizing in the Middle East. Still, it was the consistently pro-Israel US which supplied Israel with massive guns and millions in cash for decades when it should have opted for an even-handed and pro-peace approach. Dulles, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, and many others saw a very strong Israel as necissary to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East. There were unforunantly two small prices to pay for this service: a) continuing war, and terrible instability in the Middle East for 50 years, b) the recent rise of Islamic radicalism and terrorism in the Middle East (partial credit).

[elscorcho768]

First, twowords, I commend you on the civility of your post.

The two examples I gave were very brief and I agree wtih most of what you said. Just to clarify my point in bringing them up; I bring them up only to refute cyrus' claim that the us will follow israel no matter what by showing two examples where the US got what it wanted out of Israel. I would challenge your claim that Israel could not destroy the Egyptian army but that is not important for this thread (If you havent read it, check out "Crisis" by Henry Kissinger). I also would argue about the war in the Suez but not in this thread. if you want, we could debate it in another thread if you're up for it.

The Liberty incident also could be its own thread, but I will state that the possible negative consequences of attacking a US ship far outweigh any positives on Israel's part. Also please note that the torpedoing of the Liberty occured after the Liberty opened fire on Israel ships. To be fair, Israeli aircrafts dropped napam and shot at the ship before. Ten US commissions and three Israeli ones all concluded that it was an accident. I just can't find a good enough reason as to why Israel would do this that doesn't stretch into conspiracy theories.

Your final point that the US should have been more even handed in its approach to the conflict. First, in the context of the Cold War, this couldn't happen. Second, the US did not supply Israel with weapons until 1968, with a few exceptions. Third, having a democracy in the Middle East is good for America. It was in our best interest to support Israel. Otherwise we wouldnt do it. I believe it is morally right to support Israel and that the removal of Israel would not stablilize the relationship between the US and the middle east. when governments call for the destruction of israel, they generally preface it with calls for the death to america.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the Middle East is concerned and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, ... the United States has followed, assisted and supported Israel in everything and every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I give two examples. 1) Yom Kippur War. Israel surrounds the Egyptian army, but withdraws as a result of direct US pressure. The US was right in asking this, if we were to assume your theory was correct, the US would have allowed Israel to destroy the entire army and capture Cairo and start WW3.

[/ QUOTE ]You realize, I hope, that you just answered your own question! World War III was to nobody's interest. Each of the two superpowers assisted its proxy in the region - but the Soviets were, shall we say, a little timid about it!

On the other hand, if Israel were not to receive massive assistance in matériel and intelligence from the United States, it would quite possibly not have been able to withstand the Egyptian blitz. Have you read the history of that war, at all, or are we wasting our time here ?

[ QUOTE ]
2) Under US pressure, Israel withdraws from the Suez.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you referring to Suez, 1956 ?

Because, if you are, this was the ONLY time that the United States put the squeeze on Israel! But examine this closer: This squeeze was not directed at Israel, per se, but at the British-French initiative against Gamal Nasser of Egypt who had seized the canal. The United States was saying to those two that they were not supposed to make geostrategic moves any more without Washington’s blessings! And Israel was caught in it.

If you are referring to the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Egyptian side of the Suez Canal, during the Yom Kippur War, this was done because there was no strategic advantage for Israel in staying there. If you were to read some time the relevant literature (Zionist, Israeli, historical), you'd see that Israel's primary political/military objective has been to neutralize the threat from Egypt.

This was eventually accomplished by (a) not hitting Egypt with a disproportionate blow in Yom Kippur, and (b) exchanging Sinai for a treaty.

[ QUOTE ]
Also lets not forget the concessions made by Israel (land for peace) because of direct pressure from the US.

[/ QUOTE ]The concessions were the result of careful and long-term planning by the Israeli leadership. The contribution of Washington to that was nominal. You should look up the history and "memoirs" of Menachem Begin. If Israel had no interest in giving up Sinai, it would still hold onto it today.

[ QUOTE ]
Every report and inquiry into the USS Liberty tragedy concluded it was an accident. There was no reason for Israel to purposely attack America.

[/ QUOTE ] Israel had not "planned" the attack beforehand, I did not say that. Israel saw the American ship spying on its military movements and sank it without thinking twice about it! Israel knew it was attacking an American ship. Israel knew it would get away with it. Israel did get away with it.

www.USSLiberty.org

[ QUOTE ]
You say nothing of every instance where Arab governments openly call for the destruction of the US.

[/ QUOTE ] What Arab government is that, please ? I challenge you to produce one head of government in the Arab world who has said such a thing. Go ahead.

(To save you from a gaffe : Afghanis and Persians are not Arabs.)

[ QUOTE ]
To say we should remove our support for Israel to appease the Arab world is insane and morally reprehensible.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not for the destruction of Israel. I'm for peace. And, despite all your rhetoric, the only chance for permanent, solid peace in the region is for America to truly pressure Israel into getting into the 21st century (it currently resides in the 19th). This is the only language Israel understands.

But this will not happen. And permanent, solid peace will not come. Only an uneasy, nervous, murderous, unproductive, divisive "peace" will happen.

[ QUOTE ]
You are awesome.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read the article correctly [?!], you would understand the point was that many intelligence agencies past and present believed what Bush believed.

[/ QUOTE ]But the point is incorrect ! British intelligence was arm-twisted into producing something that the spooks felt uncomfortable with. Czech intelligence faked the Niger connection. Italian intelligence amplified the Czech fabrications. Russian intelligence was a joke. And the CIA did a patently, obviously lousy job!

Everybody was falling all over themselves to please Washington, to the point that some intellignece agencies started murdering in cold blood innocent immigrants in their country and labeling them "terrorists", just to appear pro-war in the eyes of Washington.

And you mean to tell me that you were not onto the lies as soon as you witnessed the wretched performance of Colin Powell in the U.N. ?? Come on, you're supposed to be a poker player.

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton thought it did in 1998 when he bombed Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ] The policy of permanent sanctions (no terms defined for lifting it) and bombing Iraq was wrong -- and it was a bi-partisan wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
The Kurds knew Saddam had used WMDs and had the potential to do it again.

[/ QUOTE ] Chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, are in a wholly different class than nucular weapons. It was the threat of the latter that ostensibly led us into war. (Remember, Saddam was supposed to present a "clear and present danger"...)

[ QUOTE ]
Multiple high level commissions on this topic support my conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ] There have been only two "high level" reports on the fiasco that I'm aware of: One was the U.S. Congress investigation, which was a bi-partisan compromise, though quite damning even for that. And the Lord Butler report in Britain, which everyone and his butler found to be a Blair whitewash.

What else you got ?..

[ QUOTE ]
I love how someone with a differing view on an issue must be delusional or simply biased.

[/ QUOTE ]Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional orheavily biased, yes. Sorry about that.

[ QUOTE ]
Where was your condemnation of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for calling for the annihilation of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ] I hereby condemn Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Happy ? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
You are awesome.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the war in Iraq, at this stage, when all the relevant info is out, are either delusional orheavily biased, yes. Sorry about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then reply to my arguement in this thread:

Bombings In Amman Show US Involvement In Iraq Is Correct

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Then reply to my arguement in this thread:


[/ QUOTE ]


You're arguments were given a precursory credit then shot down. I showed how your logic could be used to justify non-military action with better results. I also gave a preliminary report on why your orignial premise is off. It surprises me that your linking others to that thread. I figured that once you read my last response, you couldn't come with a counter argument so you 1) were trying to develop one 2) were strongly considering reversing your position 3) quit thinking and cursed how some people can be so stupid.

By the way, if you come up with a counter argument to anything that I say, I will always seek to either shed light on its flaws or admit that you were right. I'm not afraid to change my mind. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong many times again. There ain't nothing wrong with reconsidering your position. I hope that we are all open enough to agree on that.