BF2S Forums Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

tthf wrote:

thanks, i will try to get my hands on that book.

but are the opinions you stated above based soley on that book? any other sources?

what was the agenda of the author?

Not solely, no. However, it is the most comprehensive and accurate account I have found thus far.

I worked at HQ USCENTCOM during the build up and execution phases and saw the intel firsthand. Once I read the book, a lot of things made more sense WRT the WMD and why we didn't see them. Plus, there were many other little things that happened that were relayed in the book that didn't make it out to the rest of the world...lends it credibility from my perspective.

From what I could tell, the agenda of the author was to tell people what happened behind the scenes during the build up, execution, and post-execution phases. It was neither overly critical nor praising of the Administration. Fairly even-handed, IMO.

Why do you care? I haven't posted anything classified. It's just a different perspective.

I never believed the US 'intel', most of the rest of the world did not either.
It was crystal clear the minimal evidence Powell presented to the UN was total crap, the CIA knew it was crap, the Germans who supplied some of it knew it was crap.
It was never put to a vote in the UN because the US knew they would lose.
The US govt believed what they wanted to believe, and had been itching to attack Iraq for years.

The Afghan war was a mess, and didn't provide good enough TV, there was nothing to burn, so Iraq had to get it.
Its strange the US committed minimal troops and hired mercenaries in the hunt for Bin Laden, but committed so many more to Iraq in the hunt for something they knew did not exist.

We still have no real idea why we invaded Iraq, why the electorates of several countries were lied to by their representatives, why there was zero planning for the post-invasion phase, why US actions post invasion seemed intended to create an insurgency rather than prevent it etc etc.
Even now the govt is trying to keep secrets from the people http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7205329.stm

Still, we've been round this circuit before, and nobody changed their views despite evidence either way.

If you want to read a book try something by Scott Ritter, he was actually there, not in a bunker in the US.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I never believed the US 'intel', most of the rest of the world did not either.
It was crystal clear the minimal evidence Powell presented to the UN was total crap, the CIA knew it was crap, the Germans who supplied some of it knew it was crap.
It was never put to a vote in the UN because the US knew they would lose.
The US govt believed what they wanted to believe, and had been itching to attack Iraq for years.

It was "crystal clear"? Hardly. You keep focusing on the single human source the Germans provided. That was a minimal part of the overall intel picture.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Afghan war was a mess, and didn't provide good enough TV, there was nothing to burn, so Iraq had to get it.
Its strange the US committed minimal troops and hired mercenaries in the hunt for Bin Laden, but committed so many more to Iraq in the hunt for something they knew did not exist.

Different scenario between Iraq and Afghanistan. Different government, different control mechanisms, different military capabilities. It's not like there's a cookie cutter solution. But that's OK. No one here expects you to know that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

We still have no real idea why we invaded Iraq, why the electorates of several countries were lied to by their representatives, why there was zero planning for the post-invasion phase, why US actions post invasion seemed intended to create an insurgency rather than prevent it etc etc.

As I told you before...if you bothered trying to read something that doesn't necessarily support your predisposed view of things, you might learn why the post-invasion phase went the way it did.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Still, we've been round this circuit before, and nobody changed their views despite evidence either way.

True enough. But at least tthf is willing to challenge his preconceptions about it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you want to read a book try something by Scott Ritter, he was actually there, not in a bunker in the US.

I'm pretty sure the two authors weren't in a bunker in the US.

Kmarion, perhaps you should look at the work of the Center before you criticize them for failing to hold Democrats to task.  They attack corruption and conflicts of interest regardless of party line.  A simple browsing of their website will show you this.  Election season is important to them (CPI) in regards to corruption and money-influence.

They didn't hold any Democrats to task in the report because it was a report on the Bush Administration, not Congress or politicians at large.

A Soros-backed philanthropic organization gave four specific grants and you say Soros influenced the report?  There are countless donors to the Center - do they have the same influence?  There is a difference in a grant - something awarded for specific research where measurable results are expected - and a blanket donation.  The OSI funding was through grants.  The fact that the Center has and continues to criticize George Soros should be proof enough that he has little to no influence in their reports or findings.

The argument - that because a Soros-founded institution previously gave 4 specific grants, there could be conflict of interest - is a weak argument.

As for the faulty intelligence thing, GWB admitted that he never had evidence that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were linked in any way.  It wasn't faulty intelligence, it was a lie.  Surely there was bad intelligence, and hindsight is 20/20 regarding that.  However, to dismiss all claims of lying as faulty intelligence is a little too simple of a generalization.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-24 03:24:16)

FEOS wrote:

Why do you care? I haven't posted anything classified. It's just a different perspective.

Just found it odd. I refrain from posting things work-related in case some psychopath tracks me down for trying to ram a 400 kV overhead power line through his land or in case I print something confidential during a lapse of concentration.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-24 03:21:52)

Kmarion wrote:

Thanks Soros.

I like this guy.

Kmarion wrote:

Thanks Soros.

No idea who he is, but essentially that site said was 'blablabla Liberal Media... lefties etc etc repeat'

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Why do you care? I haven't posted anything classified. It's just a different perspective.

Just found it odd. I refrain from posting things work-related in case some psychopath tracks me down for trying to ram a 400 kV overhead power line through his land or in case I print something confidential during a lapse of concentration.

I don't post things that involve my work now, so I guess we're in agreement.

FEOS wrote:

What a riot. After the fact, some journalists (who I'm sure have nothing but pure, altruistic intentions) find that the information the US (and the rest of the Western world) had on Iraq prior to 2003 was incorrect. Earth shattering. And they frame it as "hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq", implying an intention to mislead when the truth is that the information was bad...which led to statements that turned out to be wrong. There is a huge difference between saying something that is incorrect and making a false statement...at least in connotation. What utter fucking yellow journalism.

FEOS wrote:

I'm not saying the intel wasn't wrong. It clearly was. What I have provided are reasons why the intel was wrong, as opposed to others who immediately jump to "Bush lied". Making a decision on bad information is completely different than making a decision on false information. You keep saying that it was intentionally falsified. All I have done is offer arguments that, while wrong, it was not falsified.

You’re clearly missing one crucial factor here: since you seem to be a member of the intelligence services yourself you will know that all information is received from various sources, examined, controlled and re-examined, just to make sure the information is correct, and then passed on to the next level, being ultimately the person(s) for whom is was destined, mostly the Government.  Intel can be false and has to be controlled, but here is a major flaw of the system: the people who are demanding official information in order to confirm their preset mind can and will in fact use (or rather misuse) any information to get their own message out.

In this case some people, who would later hold high offices in your Government, made it clear in 1997-2000 that the US should attack Iraq and remove Saddam. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

PNAC wrote:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.  In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.  We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

...

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams    Richard L. Armitage    William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner    John Bolton    Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama    Robert Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol    Richard Perle    Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld    William Schneider, Jr.    Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz    R. James Woolsey    Robert B. Zoellick

Also take a closer look at these articles: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqm … 0-1997.htm

Iraq (For Middle East click here.)

State of Terror Gary Schmitt, Weekly Standard, November 20, 2000

Project Memorandum, Gary Schmitt, March 3, 1999

Letter to the Editor Stephen Solarz and Paul Wolfowitz, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999

Project Memorandum, Mark Lagon, January 7, 1999

Saddam Wins-Again Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard, January 4-11, 1999

Project Memorandum, Mark Lagon, November 13, 1998

Project Memorandum, Gary Schmitt, November 10, 1998

How to Attack Iraq Weekly Standard Editorial, November 16, 1998

A Way to Oust Saddam, Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard, September 28, 1998

Wolfowitz Statement on U.S. Policy Toward Iraq, Project Memorandum, Gary Schmitt, September 18, 1998

Statement before the House National Security Committee, Paul Wolfowitz

Project Memorandum, Gary Schmitt, August 14, 1998

Project Memorandum, Gary Schmitt, June 17, 1998

Project Letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, May 29, 1998

Adrift in the Gulf, John Bolton, Weekly Standard, March 23, 1998

Kofi Hour, John Bolton, Weekly Standard, March 9, 1998

A 'Great Victory' For Iraq, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, Washington Post, February 26, 1998

Saddam's Impending Victory Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard, February 2, 1998

Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, New York Times, January 30, 1998

Speaking of Iraq Project Article, Washington Times, January 27, 1998

Project Memorandum, Gary Schmitt, January 26, 1998

Letter to President Clinton, January 26, 1998

Congress Versus Iraq John Bolton, Weekly Standard, January 19, 1998

The UN Rewards Saddam, John Bolton, Weekly Standard, December 15, 1997

So, basically, while the information in the hands of your services, both military and civilian, was insufficient – I’m not saying false – your leaders misused this information in order to attain their ultimate goal – and for some people no doubt their ‘wet dream’ – of invading Iraq and removing Saddam.

So, yes, Bush & Co. did lie, because they knew or had to know – unless you’re saying the intelligence people were incompetent - that the information was not correct, or at least insufficient, but it served their needs well. And after 9/11 everything was possible, no-one would intervene with common sense. As i wrote in another topic (http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p1812769):

Pierre wrote:

When times are tough, it takes a brave man (or woman) to stand up for his/her beliefs and to confront the most obvious.

In 2002, mainstream politics was about going to war in Iraq and apparently only a few were brave enough to question the underlying motives.

"The United States of America Has Gone Mad" 
by John le Carré (15 january 2003)
(http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0115-01.htm)

Pierre wrote:

You’re clearly missing one crucial factor here: since you seem to be a member of the intelligence services yourself you will know that all information is received from various sources, examined, controlled and re-examined, just to make sure the information is correct, and then passed on to the next level, being ultimately the person(s) for whom is was destined, mostly the Government.  Intel can be false and has to be controlled, but here is a major flaw of the system: the people who are demanding official information in order to confirm their preset mind can and will in fact use (or rather misuse) any information to get their own message out.

In this case some people, who would later hold high offices in your Government, made it clear in 1997-2000 that the US should attack Iraq and remove Saddam. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

I'm not a member of the intel community, but I do work closely with them and have more than a passing understanding of their process. So, I would argue that I'm not missing your one crucial factor. In fact, your argument weighs more heavily against a conspiracy to falsify intel than it does for one. I posted nearly the exact same thing in the temp forums a while back.

The part where your argument fails is the implication that officials can "demand official information in order to confirm their preset mind". It simply doesn't work that way. People (at all levels) submit intelligence requirements, which are either answered with information on hand or tasked out for collection via the most appropriate method. The information either comes back or it doesn't. If it comes back and is assessed to answer the question at hand, the answer--good, bad, or otherwise--is provided to the original requestor. There are checks and balances in the system specifically to prevent influence from one office or another on the objective information.

No one is arguing that key members of the Bush administration didn't want to topple Saddam. The argument is over the supposed "lying" regarding intelligence pointing to WMD. Two different issues.

Pierre wrote:

So, basically, while the information in the hands of your services, both military and civilian, was insufficient – I’m not saying false – your leaders misused this information in order to attain their ultimate goal – and for some people no doubt their ‘wet dream’ – of invading Iraq and removing Saddam.

So, yes, Bush & Co. did lie, because they knew or had to know – unless you’re saying the intelligence people were incompetent - that the information was not correct, or at least insufficient, but it served their needs well. And after 9/11 everything was possible, no-one would intervene with common sense.

I'm not saying the intelligence people are or were incompetent. I'm also saying that there were no "lies" from the Administration regarding the intel. It is not an either/or scenario. The intel--over a decade's worth, mind you--pointed to Iraq having an active WMD program. That intel spanned more than one Presidential administration, resulted in multiple UN resolutions and continued sanctions, and led to bombings by the Clinton Administration. It wasn't like this information just sprang up starting in 2001 after Bush was inaugurated.

So I'm missing where the new administration would've "had to know...that the information was not correct, or at least insufficient..."

People blinded by hatred of the current US administration are having a hard time dealing with the historical record on this one.

topal63 wrote:

What a fucking super-stupid thread!!!

I cant' believe that anyone is so stupid as to:

1.) Think it's earth shattering news that Bush & Co. are a pieces of shit; liars; bull-shitters - on this issue.
2.) They obviously lied about Iraq, mislead, distorted the facts. Colin Powell's stooge show at the UN was pure hilarity.
3.) Bad intel, what a weak stupid argument, and weak manipulation of reality. Laughable! Distorting the truth, misrepresenting the truth, failing to investigate the truth, lack of veracity, lack of integrity for the truth, bull-shitting the public to sway opinion, etc, etc, etc... it's all the same thing. Lying, deception, bullshitting, etc... in one form or another.
4.) Obviously the media failed big time; fell in line; let the truth be run over by an agenda.
5.) It is all water under the bridge. Spilt milk. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall already, time to put Iraq back together again.
6.) Why are we arguing about a clear misrepresentation of the facts? Because Bush wanted to "believe-in" this distortion of reality? That somehow he was acting on behalf of the public; in America's best interests; because he had a desire to "belief it," and act on that "belief?"

I never believed any of the bullshit why it was happening and in retrospect it sickens me that so many did fall for the bullshit manipulations (and lack of veracity in the media) and now "we" like political hacks must argue about, one way or the other, that it was "a reasonable course of action" - "our actions were within reason" - "just bad intel" - or the like.

Bullshit is so prevalent in the American mind-set it permeates all - even the good reasonable man - the man/woman you call neighbor, friend or even family. I am feeling a bit moody today. So disregard this rant... and understand that I might; or might not defend my opinion: that all arguments that claim this was a reasonable goof (common bad intel) - is utter bullshit.

People blinded by hatred of the current US administration are having a hard time dealing with the historical record on this one.