[dante]

so the weatherman is a liar when he's wrong? stop doing this. the both of you. you look ridiculous trying to make this stick. it hasn't & it won't. even that bimbo pelosi knows this doesn't have legs.

Last I checked, a weatherman predicts the future, while Cheney was claiming things were true when he'd already been told that they weren't. I can't believe that the revisionist history is starting already...

 

[ohio]

i'm sorry, did "lie" get redefined to mean "****ty intel"? it's one thing to only consider evidence to support an a-priori conclusion ("tell me what i want to hear"). it's quite another matter to knowingly dismiss contradictory intel.

for clarity, which do you think it is?

 

[Defenestrated]

ffs, you wrote "No, because what they did is manipulated intelligence to justify killing 1 million people. ", which we didn't do. do you honestly think we killed one million people (i'm being very generous by allowing these disputed figures), or that the conflict has resulted in mass casualties? i certainly cannot be both.
so the weatherman is a liar when he's wrong? stop doing this. the both of you. you look ridiculous trying to make this stick. it hasn't & it won't. even that bimbo pelosi knows this doesn't have legs.

this is apart from the fact that you've now wandered away from the sweeping allegation "Bush / Cheney blatantly lied trying to link Iraq and terrorists" to "cheney misled about atta & saddam cronies meeting in praque when he put forth they had intel coming from the czechs".

Arguing from disbelief/ignorance usually isn't in logically sound territory.

 

[$tinkle]

look, my belief is cheney did practice what can be very strongly argued as some level of deceit (most esp toward himself), but did not meet the legal def of perjury. probably did it for the most obvious reason: he wanted his selective intel to be true & complete. i know i did. i beer-bonged the wmd juice.

you...you seem shocked...

 

[Samirol]

What about Colin Powell scaremongering into getting people to believe that Iraq could attack the US with UAVs?

Which of these outright lies did you believe? http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7093_the_un_deceptio.html

 

[$tinkle]

i hardly view pre-war iraq as innocuous, as we are reminded: [600 tons of] Uranium removed from Iraq nuclear site

It had been stored at Tuwaitha, an installation south of Baghdad that had been the site of Iraq's nuclear program.

wat? you mean they never had a nuclear energy program?

 

[Samirol]

"The yellowcake removed from Iraq - which was not the same yellowcake that President George W. Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa - could be used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Only after intensive processing would it become low-enriched uranium, which could fuel reactors producing power. Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs."

 

[$tinkle]

yes, samirol, "different" precisely means "without potential"

good catch.

 

[Samirol]

So it wasn't the yellow cake bush was talking about, Iraq didn't possess the materials to make it dangerous, the only country that did was Iraq's enemy, Iran. You're fishing deep Stinkle

 

[$tinkle]

iraq had a nukular weapons program re-born after da jooz bombed Osirak; this is not in dispute

namely:

• Indigenous production and overt and covert procurement of natural uranium compounds.
• Industrial-scale facilities for the production of pure uranium compounds suitable for fuel fabrication or isotopic enrichment.
• Research and development of the full range of enrichment technologies culminating in the industrial-scale exploitation of EMIS and substantial progress towards similar exploitation of gas centrifuge enrichment technology.
• Design and feasibility studies for an indigenous plutonium production reactor, although there are no indications that Iraq's plans for an indigenous plutonium production reactor proceeded beyond a feasibility study.
• Research and development of irradiated fuel reprocessing technology.
• Research and development of weaponisation capabilities for implosion-based nuclear weapons at the A1 Atheer nuclear weapons development and production plant.
• A "crash programme" aimed at diverting safeguarded research reactor fuel and recovering the HEU for use in a nuclear weapon.

don't make it sound like i'm saying they had a lit match by the fuse that only bush could blow out. i'm saying any claims they didn't have nuclear ambition in some phase of development is without merit.

 

[Samirol]

That was before the Gulf War

 

[ohio]

On the spectrum of political crimes, from making mistakes on your tax filings (honest every day mistake), to being part of an evil cabal bent on world domination at any cost, to getting a blowjob and saying you didn't (the worst), where do you put hand selecting faulty intelligence to pursue a predetermined aim with full knowledge that it will cost at minimum hundreds of human lives and billions of dollars (with the unintentional result of hundreds of thousands dead, hundreds of billions squandered, and a whole region destabilized, and rogue despot given credibility, and an endless ideological war started)?

 

[$tinkle]

That was before the Gulf War

yes, mr. cheney, it was.
and during...

On the spectrum of political crimes, from making mistakes on your tax filings (honest every day mistake), to being part of an evil cabal bent on world domination at any cost, to getting a blowjob and saying you didn't (the worst), where do you put hand selecting faulty intelligence to pursue a predetermined aim with full knowledge that it will cost at minimum hundreds of human lives and billions of dollars (with the unintentional result of hundreds of thousands dead, hundreds of billions squandered, and a whole region destabilized, and rogue despot given credibility, and an endless ideological war started)?

just like the holocaust, it's too big to fully appreciate

 

[Defenestrated]

The funniest part to me is that the invasion of Iraq killed more civilians than most nuclear devices could ever hope to take out.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

The funniest part to me is that the invasion of Iraq killed more civilians than most nuclear devices could ever hope to take out.

So has influenza....whooooooo boy, that's some funny sh*t.

 

[Defenestrated]

influenza isn't our fault

 

[Samirol]

yes, mr. cheney, it was.
and during...

"When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

I can see how you can misinterpret that to mean "yes"

 

[Secret Squirrel]

influenza isn't our fault

The way peeps keep spoutin' off, it may as well be...

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!"


:huh:

 

[$tinkle]

when your mom catches you smoking pot in her basement & scolds you, do you then satisfy her <shudder> by preventing access? certainly not. so, she kicks in the door, takes your blacklight fireman pr0n velvet posters, and then declares your basement to be free & clear.

but since you want to play the selective quote game w/ spurned has-been ritter:

In 2002, Scott Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed.

this was 3 yrs after your quote. don't suppose this might be germane, relevant, or otherwise useful.

especially when addressing the capabilities we knew about, and not the ones which were incognito, shelved, or in their infancy. no. certainly saddam has no track record whatsoever of circumnavigating the u.n. (as long as we don't bring up oil-for-food, which netted him in excess of $10B - perhaps useful in gold plating every toilet in his palaces or funding a nuke weapons program)

 

[Defenestrated]

when your mom catches you smoking pot in her basement & scolds you, do you then satisfy her <shudder> by preventing access? certainly not. so, she kicks in the door, takes your blacklight fireman pr0n velvet posters, and then declares your basement to be free & clear.

but since you want to play the selective quote game w/ spurned has-been ritter:this was 3 yrs after your quote. don't suppose this might be germane, relevant, or otherwise useful.

especially when addressing the capabilities we knew about, and not the ones which were incognito, shelved, or in their infancy. no. certainly saddam has no track record whatsoever of circumnavigating the u.n. (as long as we don't bring up oil-for-food, which netted him in excess of $10B - perhaps useful in gold plating every toilet in his palaces or funding a nuke weapons program)

exactly how many lives hang in the balance when your mom raids your room?

 

[Samirol]

We went in knowing that, at a minimum, 100k would die, over a 5-10% chance that Iraq could hit Israel? God damn America.

 

[X3pilot]

The funniest part to me is that the invasion of Iraq killed more civilians than most nuclear devices could ever hope to take out.

Really? No, seriously, REALLY?

You MUST be a UN weapons inspector.

 

[Defenestrated]

Really? No, seriously, REALLY?

You MUST be a UN weapons inspector.

I MUST be a UN weapons inspector.

 

[$tinkle]

We went in knowing that, at a minimum, 100k would die

i don't think we ever imagined it would be anything more than gulf war redux, w/ 95% of casualties being republican guard

over a 5-10% chance that Iraq could hit Israel?

i think that's in the neighborhood of 100%, as previously demonstrated

 

[syadasti]

i don't think we ever imagined it would be anything more than gulf war redux, w/ 95% of casualties being republican guard

Actually exactly what GHWB said would happened happened. We knew the first time around it would be a huge mistake to occupy Iraq and there was no new evidence to suggest otherwise. Even the Israelis said it was a mistake.

 

[$tinkle]

troubling times lay ahead: Strategic Divergence: The War Against the Taliban and the War Against Al Qaeda

Washington’s attention is now zeroing in on Afghanistan. There is talk of doubling U.S. forces there, and preparations are being made for another supply line into Afghanistan — this one running through the former Soviet Union — as an alternative or a supplement to the current Pakistani route. To free up more resources for Afghanistan, the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq probably will be accelerated. And there is discussion about whether the Karzai government serves the purposes of the war in Afghanistan. In short, U.S. President Barack Obama’s campaign promise to focus on Afghanistan seems to be taking shape.

and then

The Taliban and the Guerrilla Warfare Challenge

The Taliban have forged relationships among many Afghan (and Pakistani) tribes. These tribes have been alienated by Karzai and the Americans, and far more important, they do not perceive the Americans and Karzai as potential winners in the Afghan conflict. They recall the Russian and British defeats. The tribes have long memories, and they know that foreigners don’t stay very long. Betting on the United States and Karzai — when the United States has sent only 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and is struggling with the idea of sending another 30,000 troops — does not strike them as prudent. The United States is behaving like a power not planning to win; and, in any event, they would not be much impressed if the Americans were planning to win.

The tribes therefore do not want to get on the wrong side of the Taliban. That means they aid and shelter Taliban forces, and provide them intelligence on enemy movement and intentions. With its base camps and supply lines running from Pakistan, the Taliban are thus in a position to recruit, train and arm an increasingly large force.

The Taliban have the classic advantage of guerrillas operating in known terrain with a network of supporters: superior intelligence. They know where the Americans are, what the Americans are doing and when the Americans are going to strike. The Taliban declines combat on unfavorable terms and strikes when the Americans are weakest. The Americans, on the other hand, have the classic problem of counterinsurgency: They enjoy superior force and firepower, and can defeat anyone they can locate and pin down, but they lack intelligence. As much as technical intelligence from unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites is useful, human intelligence is the only effective long-term solution to defeating an insurgency. In this, the Taliban have the advantage: They have been there longer, they are in more places and they are not going anywhere.

There is no conceivable force the United States can deploy to pacify Afghanistan. A possible alternative is moving into Pakistan to cut the supply lines and destroy the Taliban’s base camps. The problem is that if the Americans lack the troops to successfully operate in Afghanistan, it is even less likely they have the troops to operate in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States could use the Korean War example, taking responsibility for cutting the Taliban off from supplies and reinforcements from Pakistan, but that assumes that the Afghan government has an effective force motivated to engage and defeat the Taliban. The Afghan government doesn’t.

The obvious American solution — or at least the best available solution — is to retreat to strategic Afghan points and cities and protect the Karzai regime. The problem here is that in Afghanistan, holding the cities doesn’t give the key to the country; rather, holding the countryside gives the key to the cities. Moreover, a purely defensive posture opens the United States up to the Dien Bien Phu/Khe Sanh counterstrategy, in which guerrillas shift to positional warfare, isolate a base and try to overrun in it.

A purely defensive posture could create a stalemate, but nothing more. That stalemate could create the foundations for political negotiations, but if there is no threat to the enemy, the enemy has little reason to negotiate. Therefore, there must be strikes against Taliban concentrations. The problem is that the Taliban know that concentration is suicide, and so they work to deny the Americans valuable targets. The United States can exhaust itself attacking minor targets based on poor intelligence. It won’t get anywhere.

usual rules apply: read it all

 

[dan-o]

troubling times lay ahead:

On the upside, unemployment has military recruitment on the rise. Obama realizes this and is simply keeping the meat grinder primed. We'll stay below 10% unemployment if it kills us.

 

[Defenestrated]

i don't think we ever imagined it would be anything more than gulf war redux, w/ 95% of casualties being republican guard
i think that's in the neighborhood of 100%, as previously demonstrated

They told us it would be like the Gulf War, but we were stupid to believe them. After all, during what part of the Gulf War did we occupy captured Iraq? They knew better, and if they didn't, I guess I would be a better military strategist.

 

[$tinkle]

i've been mulling this part of the previously linked stratfor article:

The U.S. strategy now appears to involve trying a surge, or sending in more troops and negotiating with the Taliban, mirroring the strategy used in Iraq. But the problem with that strategy is that the Taliban don&#8217;t seem inclined to make concessions to the United States. The Taliban don&#8217;t think the United States can win, and they know the United States won&#8217;t stay. The Petraeus strategy is to inflict enough pain on the Taliban to cause them to rethink their position, which worked in Iraq. But it did not work in Vietnam. So long as the Taliban have resources flowing and can survive American attacks, they will calculate that they can outlast the Americans. This has been Afghan strategy for centuries, and it worked against the British and Russians.

If it works against the Americans, too, splitting the al Qaeda strategy from the Taliban strategy will be the inevitable outcome for the United States. In that case, the CIA will become the critical war fighter in the theater, while conventional forces will be withdrawn. It follows that Obama will need to think carefully about his approach to intelligence.

this, i believe, is code for another need for a "surge" in humint; the only way to get that in this theater is enemy-of-my-enemy. but who really is a dependable source for that? certainly no recognized government (tribal/local) would be fully complicit. and electronic surveillance? forget it: we don't have enough resources to translate the handful of native languages in realtime.

an air campaign is sexy, but draining, and intractable against an enemy who's so primal.

 

[$tinkle]

oh, remember this from back in september? Gates: 3 more brigades in Afghanistan in spring

as promised: Afghanistan is top US priority: Pentagon chief [Gates]

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Afghanistan now poses "the greatest military challenge" to the United States, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday as he predicted "a long and difficult fight".

Gates said there have not been enough troops to provide security in the most dangerous parts of the country so the new administration of President Barack Obama was considering an increase in US forces there.

"There is little doubt that our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan," Gates said. "President Obama has made it clear that the Afghanistan theatre should be our top military priority."

Gates said the Pentagon would probably be in a position to deploy three combat brigades to Afghanistan by mid-summer, but the deployment of a fourth would have to await the expansion of basing infrastructure there.

"While this will undoubtedly be a long and difficult fight, we can attain what I believe should be among our strategic objectives: an Afghan people who do not provide a safe haven for Al-Qaeda, reject the rule of the Taliban, and support the legitimate government that they elected and in which they have a stake," he said.

Unlike other Obama cabinet officers, Gates does not require confirmation in his post by the Senate, but he went before the Senate Armed Services Committee to address questions in his role as defense secretary in a new administration.

The US commander in Afghanistan has requested 30,000 more troops for the country -- including the four combat brigades, each with about 3,500 soldiers -- nearly doubling the 34,000 US troops already there.

 

[Samirol]

i don't think we ever imagined it would be anything more than gulf war redux, w/ 95% of casualties being republican guard
i think that's in the neighborhood of 100%, as previously demonstrated

5-10% chance of them having weapons to attack Israel with, so we sent in weapons inspectors that said that weren't any WMDs.

There wasn't a reason to invade, weapons inspectors said that there weren't any WMDs, the Bush Administration regularly lied in order to gain support.

 

[$tinkle]

can't you think of a better way to express your objection than to purposefully conflate inaccuracy & lying? this is to say nothing of congress' role in the run-up, with special emphasis on the senate intelligence committee. point is, it's a hard sell when you go out of your way to remove context & other critical key players.

in an odd way, you've got a bigger hard-on for bush & co than i. what are you going to do when you see obama's execution of our foreign policy nearly mimic the prev admin's? personally, i shall rejoice

 

[Defenestrated]

what are you going to do when you see obama's execution of our foreign policy nearly mimic the prev admin's?

Criticize it.

Not all of us are as superficial as you think.