Selling the War -- The Plot Unravels

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]Bursting bubbles …

[quote]Saddam Terrorist Regime: Finding and Analysis Based on Captured Iraqi Documents.
(original posting by jveritas at - freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823454/posts)[/quote]

[/quote]

TC, Free Republic is not a credible news source. I don’t even know that you could call it a news source. It’s a discussion forum. Using someones post from there, and quoting it as if it’s news is no different than taking someones words here on f.com and quoting them as news.

As for the author of that quote, he says that the site they’re from in no longer up, and that he downloaded and saved the documents before it went down. And you expect us to believe that they are true.

If you can provide another link to the same documents that’s posted on a credible site, people might pay attention to what they say. As they stand now, there’s no way of knowing whether they are true or not, no way of knowing whether they even came from the FMSO site.

I thought you of all people would know better than that.[/quote]cfi -
He has the doc’s dl’d on his ‘profile page’. All you have to do is click on his name. They may be available cached elsewhere on the internet.
Regarding credibility of sources, if at this point in your life you are unable to establish veracity of a source through intelligent application of standards, that is something you’ll just have to work on. I have always asked people to do their own sourcing and fact-checking.

22

I did a bit of checking, TC. I don’t read Arabic, and I haven’t spent that much time looking at them, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt.

For every site that mentions these documents as true, there’s another site that says they are fabrications or wrongly interpreted. One is the docs was supposedly from the Federation of American Scientists. That was the one that was supposedly the manual for Saddam’s spies.

Another that some said was proof that Iraq and AQ were working together, was said by other translators to actually be an APB for Zarqawi put out by Iraq who were worried that he was going to try to enter Iraq and it directed that he be arrested on sight.

Some are written in a style of Arabic that is not used in Iraq.

Etc. Etc.

I’m not saying these accounts are any truer than what you posted. The info I just mentioned was mostly from blogs/discussion forums, the same as FR.

What I find most interesting is that there’s a major lack of news about these documents in any credible source - whether liberal or conservative.

If I were to take a guess, I’d say that they were mostly fake or poorly translated. Not because of what the blogs/forums say, but because it was only after people suggesting that they were fake that the FMSO pulled them from their site. And the FMSO has archives posted going back a lot longer than these documents. That leads me to believe that the FMSO realised they weren’t legit and took them down.

23

Spook, I finally got around to watching [part of] the video you linked. It’s great. Thanks.

Reminds me alot of this terrific book I read about a year ago. It’s very eloquently written, short easy reading, and right on the point of your video – about how the bush administration, with the assistance of the media, distracted the public in a flag-waving, patriotic frenzy in order to stifle dissent, rational debate, and resistance to their planned trajectory.

I’m sure you’d enjoy the book. Here’s part of one review.

[quote]Lapham, editor of Harper’s, plays the role of a modern-day Tom Paine, propelling stinging criticisms and scathing indictments at the Bush administration and its supporters for what he claims are their bald-faced deceptions about the justifications for the war in Iraq and for establishing policies—especially the USA Patriot Act—he sees as aimed at silencing dissent about its policies and the war in Iraq.

Lapham argues that the muting of dissenting voices has contributed to the erosion of democracy, because policy disagreements form the heart of a democratic republic. Most disturbing, says Lapham, is the complicity of the media in its support of the steady erosion of individual civil liberties in the name of national security. Lapham also levels forceful criticism at our educational system: “An inept and insolent bureaucracy armed with badly written textbooks instills in the class the attitudes of passivity, compliance, and boredom.” This, charges Lapham (30 Satires; Theater of War; etc.), results in schools producing citizens who blindly accept the pronouncements of their leaders.

The United States, he points out in a strong historical sketch, has a deep history of quashing dissent when politicians have raised alarms over perceived threats to the well-being of the country, most notably with the Sedition Act of 1798, the Espionage Act of 1917 and, he asserts, the Patriot Act. Lapham’s compelling book reminds us that “democracy is an uproar, and if we mean to engage the argument about the course of the American future let us hope that it proves to be loud, disorderly, bitter and fierce.”[/quote]
amazon.com/Gag-Rule-Suppress … 1594200173

Reminds me also of President Bush’s idiotic remark that “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” (and the repetition of that sentiment by mindless patriotic drones). Well, fuck you W! As Teddy Roosevelt said in 1918, when disagreeing with Woodrow Wilson’s theory of WWI:

That’s just one of the many great quotes from the above book.

24

CFI -
You may well be right. I don’t know the reason or reasons they were pulled. It could be conflict over translations, it could be for security reasons, it could be that they were planted for misinformation/misdirection reasons and it could be that they were absolutely correct and this caused somebody problems.

Look, its a house with many rooms. When I post something like this I do it for discussion and to provide another way of looking at the situation. It doesn’t mean its always right or the only answer. Sometimes it doesn’t even mean I agree with what the article is proposing.
I get a bit chagrined by the labels that get stuck on me and the box some folks want to put me in.

25

TC, lame response to cfi. you aren’t sure if it was posted originally for misinformation? now you say it might be a questionable source? you should have said all those things when you posted it. you hurt your own credibility, no one has to do it for you.

26

The press is never,never biased.

I watched the video and was unimpressed by the number of newspaper articles and people who were supportive of the Iraq invasion - especially since plenty of papers were editorializing against it. This seems like one of those perfect hindsight/ chance-to-attack-people-you-dont-like/ accusation pieces.

27

President Bush during an interview, Sept. 6, 2006

28

President Bush during an interview, Sept. 6, 2006[/quote]

President Bush during a speech, Oct 2005

:eh:

29

[quote=“v”]TC, lame response to cfi. you aren’t sure if it was posted originally for misinformation? now you say it might be a questionable source? you should have said all those things when you posted it. you hurt your own credibility, no one has to do it for you.[/quote]v -
Thinking for yourself is hard…innit?

Please re-read my comment. Notice how your post is a mis-interpretation of my comment?

Thats what happens to intel - its gathered, its interpreted and somewhere along the way its determined if it requires verification and then its determined how that verification should be done.

If you have a dis-agreement with the information presented…list what you dis-agree with and why?
Be pro-active rather than re-active.

30

Someone needs to calm the fuck down. I believe that Bush’s statement was in reference to those foreign government’s which had in the past supported terrorists. I doubt very highly whether he is personally concerned about the opinions of one Mother Theresa, but please do come out anyway and tell us whether you support terrorism.

31

Just to remind everyone… This had been the US posture since Bush I (with regard to Iraq).

Sanctions
Containment
Efforts at Regime Change

What happened on 911? The administration determined as had the Clinton administration before it that Saddam would never cooperate and that his personality was such that he would never learn. Hence in the new world of terrorists, it was considered expedient to remove Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. According to Kenneth Pollack’s book, after Saddam was overthrown it was determined that he was within 6 months to 24 months of developing a nuclear weapon. This was far more advanced than had previously been assumed. The British intelligence service still stands by its claim that he was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger in 1999. Both the Duelfer and Butler reports found that Saddam had every intention of restarting his wmd programs when sanctions collapsed.

Today, the terrorists, al Qaeda, have stated publicly that they consider Iraq a central theater. This is not Bush’s statement. This is a direct quote from Osama and Zawahiri and even Zarkawi (before he was vaporized). Shall we also have dismissive remarks from Rascal regarding these quotes or are they no longer relevant to the discussion?

32

How? He had no nuclear plants (AFAIK), so how would he go about developing and building a nuclear weapon in that time frame? This is a genuine question Fred because I’m interested in knowing the reasoning behind the timeframe - I’m not simply arguing for sake of arguing. And no I haven’t read any of his books - I assume you’re referring to the Persian Puzzle, as his other 2 books were published in 2002.

33

The quote was from Persian Puzzle. I am going to see if I can track the footnote to an online source. Regardless, there was surprise at how far advanced Saddam’s programs had gotten him. Pollack raises this point in reference to the fact that he believes that the mullahs are much further in their efforts and given the shamelessly feckless response of the Europeans, Russians and Chinese who seem to be willing to deal with anyone just to make a quick buck (ironically this is what their usual protesting brigades of citizenry charge the US with) that actions can be taken (economically) to pressure Iran but ONLY if the Russians, Europeans and Chinese actually cooperate with the US. The track record of European commitment gives no cause for hope. Even less so in the case of Russia and China. By all accounts, we will be dealing with a nuclear Iran within three years, probably at the earlier end of the time frame. Pollack also correctly points to some conventional wisdom that Europeans are willing to let this happen because they assume that it will be the US who has to “take care of the problem.” The US does not have the ability nor should it risk the effort to invade. Regime change is a distant hope in his view.

I would here throw down the gauntlet to those perennial protesters about the US and its lack of adherence to international law. Here, we have grievous violations by Iran. What will the rest of the world do about it? The best hope is strictly enforced economic sanctions. Who’s up for that? Whose government will commit to that? How long before the usual whining and moaning at the UN about the suffering Iranian people, etc. Let’s see some online commitment here.

34

[quote=“fred smith”]
Today, the terrorists, al Qaeda, have stated publicly that they consider Iraq a central theater. This is not Bush’s statement. This is a direct quote from Osama and Zawahiri and even Zarkawi (before he was vaporized). Shall we also have dismissive remarks from Rascal regarding these quotes or are they no longer relevant to the discussion?[/quote]

Is this because Iraq was originally a Sunni dictatorship that has essentially lost power to a country dominated by Shias whilst Al Quaeda itself is essentially Sunni?

35

Of course that didn’t stop the US from selling nuclear technology to India even though India didn’t sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Russia’s biggest threat to Europe is its near monopoly of gas supplies. Military threat? I don’t think so. Russia isn’t 1/10th of the power it used to be except of course for its nuclear arsenal, but thats not really an option is it.

In terms of Iran, I agree with you Fred. It doesn’t pose much threat to the US, but given the failure of Europe to keep Muslims out and the likely number of extremists living there, the threat of a dirty bomb from Iran being detonated in Europe is a very real possibility. Thats why there is no way Turkey should be allowed to enter the EU.

36

The US did everything it possibly could to keep both India and Pakistan from going nuclear. Once India was nuclear, the question was where and how do we go ahead. Do you think that there is no difference between India with nukes and especially nuclear power and Iran with the same?

I think that you are missing the point. Russia is claiming to view the missile deployment as a threat and is therefore pulling out of the treaty. Does that make sense to any sentient being?

Hmmm. I am not sure that I am afraid that the Iranians would ever pass a nuke to terrorists unless they were attacked. The problem is that with nukes would the mullahocracy take steps to become even more aggressive in its funding and support of terrorists safe in its knowledge that it would never be attacked again because of the possibility of a nuke being passed to terrorists in retaliation?

The “problem” with the Muslims in Europe is very similar to our American “problem” with the Blacks, American Indians and Puerto Ricans. Excessively generously welfare had stunted the advance of all three groups. Once dismantled, poverty rates for Black and Puerto Ricans dropped dramatically. I am not aware of the figures for American Indians. Lest this be viewed as racist and attacked with all the usual self-righteousness, let me point out that Puerto Ricans are essentially white genetically. So much for White Supremacy or Black Inferiority. It was the policies that rewarded irresponsible behavior that were to blame. IF Europe were to reform its labor, unemployment and welfare services, I believe that the Muslims would integrate much faster, much better. It is NOT a coincidence that the first generation (which values work and responsibility) does better while the subsequent two generations doing progressively worse. People have to have some boundaries. They are not being given those in Europe today just as they were not in America’s cities for 40 years. REFORM would solve much of this problem but not all. There are, for example, still chasms in the Black vs. White vs. Hispanic communities in terms of achievement BUT there is a lot less “understanding” for the nonsense that was excused before as somehow justified. Europe needs more Margaret Thatchers, more Republican policies and less wishy washy multi culti crap about tolerance and diversity. We essentially started ditching ours in 1996. If Europe were to being today, by 2017, it might find itself in much better shape and then the Muslims would not matter.

37

Your employed by the American government Fred. That’s what I call an excessively generous welfare payment.

38

Paging Tainan Cowboy. Maybe this is why no one takes your purported Saddam-al-Qa’ida links documents trove seriously:

“The Iraq-al-Qa’ida controversy continued, even after Saddam was long gone from power. Once U.S. forces reached Baghdad, they discovered—stacked where they could easily find them—purported Iraqi intelligence services documents that showed much tighter links between Saddam and Zarqawi and Saddam and al-Qa’ida. CIA analysts worked with the U.S. Secret Service to have the paper and ink checked and tried to verify the names and information in the documents. Time and again, documents that were supposedly produced in the early 1990s turned out to be forgeries. CIA officers interviewed Iraqi intelligence officers in Baghdad who also discounted the authenticity of the documents. It was obvious that someone was trying to mislead us. But these raw, unevaluated documents that painted a more nefarious picture of Iraq and al-Qa’ida continued to show up in the hands of senior administration officials without having gone through normal intelligence channels.”
– At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, by George Tenet, p.356

39

The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack. Read it.

I had forgotten over the years just how much many of the instability issues, the difficulties of rebuilding Iraq, the fights between Sunni and Shia, the influence of Iran had been discussed in the leadup PRIOR to the war. He brief Congress, the Bush administration and the many committees on these issues PRIOR to the war. The idea therefore that none of this was known or that the Bush administration was being pie-in-the-sky about its approach is therefore patently false. Despite all these difficulties, given the variables and given Saddam’s personality, Pollack still recommended an invasion DESPITE all the exact difficulties that we are facing now and for very cogent reasons that were agreed to by all those briefed in BOTH parties. I am shocked at the pretenses among Democrat congresspeople now that they somehow had been “tricked” into this war. Pollack made it very clear in 2002 just what we would be facing and why it would still be worth it. The least worst of a bunch of bad options in his words.

40

[quote=“fred smith”]The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack. Read it.

I had forgotten over the years just how much many of the instability issues, the difficulties of rebuilding Iraq, the fights between Sunni and Shia, the influence of Iran had been discussed in the leadup PRIOR to the war. He brief Congress, the Bush administration and the many committees on these issues PRIOR to the war. The idea therefore that none of this was known or that the Bush administration was being pie-in-the-sky about its approach is therefore patently false. Despite all these difficulties, given the variables and given Saddam’s personality, Pollack still recommended an invasion DESPITE all the exact difficulties that we are facing now and for very cogent reasons that were agreed to by all those briefed in BOTH parties. I am shocked at the pretenses among Democrat congresspeople now that they somehow had been “tricked” into this war. Pollack made it very clear in 2002 just what we would be facing and why it would still be worth it. The least worst of a bunch of bad options in his words.[/quote]

You’re sure singing a different tune than you were a year or two ago. ‘Memory’ is a funny thing though, no doubt, as Scooter Libby recently tried to claim.