Why Stay in Iraq?

[JMortensen]

Couple of things:

 

First, we already KNOW that lying under oath is not an impeachable offense.

 

Second, everything that I can find says they TESTIFIED to the 9/11 Commission, just not publicly.

 

Third, I think you could make a better case for dereliction of duty for a president LYING to the Commission than you could for one perjuring himself as in the Lewinsky scandal.

 

Most importantly though, if the Democrats in the Commission who questioned them had only good things to say about their testimony, then why are you taking issue with it? Maybe because it's not public info, and maybe that's where we disagree. I don't think everything that the govt does should be public, and I understood why Clinton and Bush did their testimony in private.

[Guest Phil1934]

From cnn.com

"Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney answered questions from the commissioners for more than three hours.

 

The president dismissed suggestions that he appeared before the panel with Cheney to coordinate stories.

 

"If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place," Bush said. "We answered all their questions."

 

Bush said it was important for him and Cheney to appear together so that commission members could "see our body language... how we work together."

 

No transcript

Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room."

 

From another site:

"President Bush aggressively lobbied Congress against a full-scale investigation. When Bush reluctantly agreed to the creation of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks, he insisted it be limited to representatives of the two major political parties, with each party having a veto over what the Commission investigated.

Commission Chairman Thomas Kean is partners with two of the Saudi billionaires sued by 9/11 families for their roles in the attacks. "

 

This is why nothing negative came out of the commission.

[johnc]

We turn a blind eye to genocide in Africa all the time, so why not in the middle east?

 

No we don't. Witness our efforts in Sudan/Darfur and how the Fench and the UN are blocking efforts to stop the Islamic genocide of African American Christians.

 

Commission Chairman Thomas Kean is partners with two of the Saudi billionaires sued by 9/11 families for their roles in the attacks. This is why nothing negative came out of the commission.

 

Here come the conspiracy theories. Where's Kevin?

[Kevin Shasteen]

Johnc wrote: "Here come the conspiracy theories. Where's Kevin?"

 

John, John-John, John, John...john,

 

After all we have been through, after all I have done for you and you treat me this way...and I thought we were friends

 

the fight between evil -vs- righteousness (control -vs- freedom) is not a conspiracy, it is the issue in everything we do in life.

 

BTW: I'm am not getting involved in this thread...so quit tempting me...you're such a tease.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[tannji]

snicker

[Guest Phil1934]

"Unknown to most, UNOCAL's partner in the Cent-Gas trans-Afghan pipeline consortium, the Saudi Company Delta Oil is owned by the bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi clans which allegedly have ties to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.

 

According to a 1998 Senate testimony of former CIA director James Woolsey, powerful financier Khalid bin Mahfouz’ younger sister is married to Osama bin Laden,. (US Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee, Federal News Service, 3 Sept. 1998, See also Wayne Madsen, Questionable Ties, In These Times,12 Nov. 2001 )

 

Bin Mahfouz is suspected to have funnelled millions of dollars to the Al Qaeda network.(See Tom Flocco, Scoop.co.nz 28 Aug. 2002)

 

Now, “by sheer coincidenceâ€, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, the man chosen by President Bush to lead the 9/11 commission also has business ties with bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi.

 

Thomas Kean is a director (and shareholder) of Amerada Hess Corporation , which is involved in the Hess-Delta joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia (owned by the bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi clans). Delta-Hess “was established in 1998 for the development and exploration of oil fields in the Caspian region...In Azerbaijan Delta Hess is involved in the Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli PSA (2.72%) and the Garabaghli-Kursangi PSA (20%). It is also an equity holder in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipelineâ€:

 

In other words, Delta Oil Ltd. of Saudi Arabia --which is a partner in the Hess-Delta Alliance--is in part controlled by Khalid bin Mafhouz, Osama's brother in law.

 

And former Governor Thomas Kean not only sits on the board of directors of a company which has business dealings with Khalid bin Mahfouz, he also heads the 9/11 Commission, which has a mandate to investigate Khalid's brother in law, Osama bin Laden.

 

Now you would think that being a business partner of the brother in law and alleged financier of “Enemy No. 1†would also be considered a bona fide “conflict of interestâ€, particularly when your mandate --as part of the 9/11 Commission's work-- is to investigate “Enemy No. 1â€.

 

But the point is the President refused to testify, had to have the man most likely to contradict him testify at the same time, insisted on no call backs, no written transcript, set up the committee so a Republican could veto any line of investigation damaging to him, and even appointed as its head someone involved in the very matter to be investigated, and who can also keep his Saudi interests off the table. Then he appears before the American people and proclaims an honest investigation turned up nothing.

[johnc]

I thought by now most people would realize how easy it is to connect one person to another. The Oracle of Bacon has been around for years and its a classic example of the whole "Six Degrees..." thing.

 

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle/

 

Another example:

 

1. John Coffey owns shares in Royal Dutch Shell.

 

2. Royal Dutch Shell has hundreds of research and extraction contracts with Saudi Company Delta Oil.

 

From these two facts, we deduce the following:

 

A. John Coffey has financial ties to the brother in law of Osama Bin Laden.

 

B. John Coffey has financial ties to the Thomas Kean, the head of the 911 Commission.

 

C. John Coffey has influenced the results of the 911 Commission investigation.

 

D. John Coffey is a key leader of the New World Order.

 

You conspiracy theory guys take very weak correlations and extrapolate cause-and-effect. That's illogical. What would relaly be intersting would be to see how a conspiracy theorist diagnoses engine problems:

 

1. Engine is not running.

 

2. I saw on Close Encounters how an alien ship caused an engine in a truck to stop running.

 

Therefore:

 

A. An alien ship caused my engine to stop running.

 

B. UFOs exist.

 

C. Extra-terrestrial life exists.

 

D. Elvis is an alien.

[Guest Phil1934]

Okay, we'll keep it simple. The President refused to swear to tell the truth about why we are in Iraq. He set up the committee so even if they found something, it would never come to light. He made sure there would not even be a written record to hold against him if something came to light outside the committee. And this is the pariah of virtue heralded daily by the right wing radio. Without hearing a word of "testimony" any logical person would conclude he lied. What everyone is asking is why?

[JMortensen]

The President refused to swear to tell the truth

 

Do you REALLY believe that swearing to tell the truth guarantees that a witness tells the truth?

 

He set up the committee so even if they found something, it would never come to light.

 

Bush set up the commission? News to me. I know he authorized it, and I would agree that he did so reluctantly. I could be totally off base, but I don't think he had all that much determination as to how it worked, etc.

 

He made sure there would not even be a written record to hold against him if something came to light outside the committee.

 

Maybe his testimony is full of stuff that we shouldn't have access to.

 

And this is the pariah of virtue heralded daily by the right wing radio.

 

And demonized by just about every major newspaper and newscast.

 

Without hearing a word of "testimony" any logical person would conclude he lied. What everyone is asking is why?

 

Really? What logical steps are you using to determine that anyone who doesn't want to tell YOU everything they know about a subject is lying? I'm sure Mike Kelly has an opinion. I'm sure he won't divulge every detail that he knows about the subject. I'm not sure that this makes him a liar...

[Heavy Z]

Back on 9/20/2001 Bush said, basically, "Its all about terrorism." A transcript of the speech is here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911jointsessionspeech.htm Nothing's changed. Its still all about terrorism and Iraq is the second battle (Afghanistan was the first) in this long war.

 

Please cite an example of Iraqi terrorism against the U.S. warranting the above proclamation. Or a foiled attempt. Or anything from our intelligence services up till that time. The CIA (and most others) thought Saddam was well coralled from the sanctions(ever read about these?), UNMOVIC disarmament and the no-fly zones. No other country on earth had more pressure on them to stay in line.

 

Now that we've liberated them terrorism, abduction, and crime are rampant in Iraq, all without Saddam and his rape rooms.

 

What about winning the hearts of the Iraqis? Clean water would be a start. If you were to flash back before desert storm, Iraq had a pretty good system for handling its drinking water. Then the war destroyed their water treatment system, and because you need chlorine, a 'dual use' agent to clean water, Iraq's water system once rebuilt never worked well due to sanctions. Now their water system was destroyed again in fighting and repairs are on hold because parts haven't been delivered yet by Bechtel, and it's not like we showed up last month. And the Iraqis know this. It's pretty hard to sell people on democracy when they have to drink water contaminated by raw sewage.

 

Quote:

We turn a blind eye to genocide in Africa all the time, so why not in the middle east?

 

 

No we don't. Witness our efforts in Sudan/Darfur and how the Fench and the UN are blocking efforts to stop the Islamic genocide of African American Christians.

 

YES we do. Sudan's got oil, so I'm not surprised to hear them on the list. But that is not all of Africa. What about the genocide in the Congo - 2 million killed in the last few years? Since we like to dispose of brutal dictators, why not there? What about the ethnic cleansing of white farmers in Zimbabwe? What about South Africa - another powder keg ready to go off? What about the christian army that was on a killing spree led by a David Korresh(sp?)-type leader chased around by the Ugandan military? When was the last time you heard ANY of these on your tv set?

 

If it all is about removing terrorism, why didn't we start in Sri Lanka, where there is a terrorist army so sophisticated they have tanks and their own air force?

[JMortensen]

Now that we've liberated them terrorism, abduction, and crime are rampant in Iraq, all without Saddam and his rape rooms.

 

When I read this sentence all I could think of was an argument I've heard about South Africa. Here's my switched around version of the same sentence:

 

Now that we've [ended apartheid] terrorism, abduction, and crime are rampant in [south Africa], all without [Africaner Nationalists] and their torture chambers.

 

Again we hear a "why didn't we go into x first?" argument. Well again I would guess that you wouldn't be too happy if we did go into Sri Lanka either.

[Guest Z-rific]

Any responsible leader would prioritize threats and act from there. Clearly, Iraq was no threat whatsoever to the US. Al Queada was and is; and still acts in numerous countries across the world. Let's deal with them first. Can you imagine how much more damage we could have done to Al Queda with 200,000 troops and 100 billion dollars?

 

We cannot invade every country that has confirmed terrorist activities., or has a malevolent dictator. We must work with countries to solve global terrorism. It's hard to do that when your leader ignores World leaders and opinion. And then to ask them for help when the situation gets out of hand...please. And no, I'm not saying we need favorable opinion to act in our defense. This situation is proving to not be necessary for our defense.

 

This is not a Bush vs. Kerry issue. I'm not wild about Kerry. But he wasn't the one individual who made the decision to invade a country that proved to be no threat to us, costing 1100 lives, 10,000 injuries, 100 billion taxpayer dollars, and still stands by the decision as right; telling those of us who disagree that we don't understand the situation.

 

And please do not use the beheading of Americans in Iraq as justification for the war. This is a situation clearly caused by the invasion.

 

Now, we are finding out that free elections will take place in January, but not for ALL of Iraq, just most of it. Well, that's not democracy at all. Since we have taken on the huge responsibility of freeing Iraq and leading them to democracy, aren't we responsible for free elections for all Iraqis? Isn't that what Bush promised?

 

A democracy like ours will never stand in Iraq. They are a different people with different values and ideals. Most Iraqis want a religiously sponsored government, lead by clerics. The minute we remove our troops from Iraq, will be the minute that American built democracy is overthrown.

 

And someone please give me one valid reason to testify, but not under oath? Why refuse to swear that your testimony is true? And why not testify alone? Does this not sound a little suspicious? Just a teeny weeny bit?

 

And finally, the 9/11 commission was equally partisan. Same number of Dems as Repubs. If you honestly think the Democrats were overly partisan and the Republicans were fair, than I fear you see the world through biased eyes. They both had agendas. The Republicans asked the most complimentary and useless questions, while the Democrats were clearly attacking. For the record, in an investigation, I'd prefer the latter. Fair questions would have been best, but that doesn't happen in Washington.

 

But, friendly discussion and disagreement is what our forefathers envisioned. It's what billions of people worldwide are not allowed to engage in. Let's be thankful for that.

 

Sorry for the rant.

[Heavy Z]

JMORT,

 

I agree your twist of wording is correct, but you're trying to frame my argument without recognizing a key issue: our govt is in charge of iraq, not S.A. Since we were the ones who decided to babysit 23 million non-US citizens, our responsibilities are much greater there.

[johnc]

Please cite an example of Iraqi terrorism against the U.S. warranting the above proclamation.

 

My head hurts and I want to scream. Please, someone, anyone, cite facts, articles, anything to add some thought and logic to these counter arguements.

 

Read what Bush said. Read the NSS of 2002. Both state that the US will go after terrorists who perform direct attacks and nations/states that both directly and indirectly support terrorists. As I've cited before in this thread, Iraq has supported terrorists with training bases, resources, and funding. I don't know how much clearer I can be in my statements or the references I cite.

 

The Bush doctrine (as formalized in NSS 2002) is a doctrine of pre-emption. Its a complete change from our decades long reliance on deterrence and containment that started with George Kennan's "Sources of Soviet Conduct" letter from the Soviet Union back in 1946: http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html.

 

Unfortunately, many people think that containment and deterrence still works in 2004. What they forget is that terrorists don't fear nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons themselves are basically un-usable against any nation/state (as we learned from the Cold War).

 

Please, please, please read some history and do some research.

[johnc]

Now, we are finding out that free elections will take place in January, but not for ALL of Iraq, just most of it. Well, that's not democracy at all. Since we have taken on the huge responsibility of freeing Iraq and leading them to democracy, aren't we responsible for free elections for all Iraqis? Isn't that what Bush promised?

 

Clearly, Iraq was no threat whatsoever to the US. Al Queada was and is; and still acts in numerous countries across the world. Let's deal with them first.

 

A democracy like ours will never stand in Iraq. They are a different people with different values and ideals. Most Iraqis want a religiously sponsored government, lead by clerics. The minute we remove our troops from Iraq, will be the minute that American built democracy is overthrown.

 

And why I'm not going to respond to these kind of arguements anymore.

 

Perfect Solution Fallacy

 

The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.

 

Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution would last very long politically once it had been implemented. Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to imagine.

 

Examples:

 

This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be able to get through!

 

Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?

 

These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.

 

It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving enough to make the policy worthwhile?

 

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-catching detail and base rates are ignored - also termed "Availability Heuristic."

 

The Willie Horton ads and welfare queen myths (both of which also used emotional appeals) are examples of this fallacy in real life.

 

The [Perfect Solution Fallacy] is a false dilemma.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

[Guest Phil1934]

One down. :wink:Seriously, I've Googled a lot for these discussions, and I've got dial up! I see this more as an opportunity to fill in the blanks over our headline only news. And while I've hit some sensational stories, if I couldn't find corroboration, I've neglected them. Nothing is perfect. But that doesn'r mean all ideas contrary to your way of thinking are wrong because they didn't pass this test.

[tkach]

im going to make this short and simple. has anybody here been to iraq? okay good if you have not then you do not know what is going on their. the media dose not potray everything that goes on in iraq. and the few things they report the usally only give half the story. i just got back from iraq i served with 1mef over their. and let me tell you wmd's exist their. hussian did support terrorism. now if you have not been to iraq you have a very small leg to stand on the aruge for or agaisnt the war as it turly dose not affect you nor your family in the way it did mine. im not going to make a statement for or agaisnt the war. i dont care what most people think. i just dont like people argueing over things that dont affect them and are pointless. and i dont care to hear what you have to say to me unless you have been their and can show proof. the media is missleadeing. as far as why stay in iraq. peace must be resotred. and if nobody notcied after we fight in a country we occupie it japan germany korea and we still have troops in these places 50 years later. and oddly the japanse and germans seem to be pretty good friends of ours now.

[JMortensen]

tkach, if you're going to post that you don't like when people who haven't been to Iraq talk about Iraq, then people are just going to tell you not to look at the discussion. This is the internet, and you don't have to read anything you don't like. Also if you write whatever you're going to post in Microsoft Word it will show you where your spelling errors are. You've got a lot and it makes you look less intelligent when you post something full of errors.

 

Also, I agree with you that we need to stay until we've won the peace, but I haven't been there. Does that mean that my opinion doesn't count?

[Heavy Z]

I share your frustration John. Let's have a look at one of your links together, so I can point out why we disagree. At the time Bush made this speech many of his accusations were contrary to existing intelligence.

 

Here are the reasons we added Iraq to the battle list from the speech Bush gave two days before the invasion:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

 

Here's the first part of his speech, from the link above:

 

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

 

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

 

(Two weeks before the attack, finding no WMD's, UN inspectors call U.S. WMD location tips 'Garbage': http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml )

 

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

 

(Hans Blix said a month before the attack that the US had been misquoting his reports to make Iraq appear less compliant than he had witnessed. Also, after this speech he asked for more time citing that progress was being made: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html?oneclick=true )

 

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

 

(Not according to the CIA, revealed six weeks prior to Bush's speech: http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/warcrime.html )

 

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

 

(Not so says the CIA, 5 months prior: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A14056-2002Oct24&notFound=true ,

and the 911 commission recently dismissed any link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html )

 

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other...

 

(I could go on. Again, based on what we know, this link had yet to be substantiated. Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clark said he was pressed to find this link by the administration and could not. If you have something that hasn't lost credibility yet I'd like to have a look.)

[Guest plainswolf]

stopping Islamic terrorism in general is great, but why not START by dealing with the guys that attacked us (Al Queada) FIRST?

 

Isn't that the reason we went into Afghanistan first? Because thats were the leadership of al queada was.

 

how come terrorism seems to thrive now in Iraq?

 

Perhaps this is where a large percentage of terrorists find the most direct battlefront against the West?

 

I don't have many answers either, but I do remember that either immediately before, or after the beginning of the war in Iraq hearing Rumsfeld saying that "this is going to be a long hard slog"

 

So if anything, it doesn't suprise me very much that it is in fact turning out to be just that.