What difference does it make what I was singing? and what exactly was I singing Spook? I am the one that said we would be there for 60 years right? I am the one that said that I was committed to this ala Japan, Korea and Germany. What part of that do you think meant that we would be in and out? I ONLY expected that we would find greater stability than we have seen so far and that this would have enabled us to reduce our troop levels to 35K to 50K by this point. Obviously, we are NOT there, right? But surely you would have noticed in my frequent statements that I expected a major troop presence there for another 60 years, and maybe even more?
Also, I had not read his book then had I? But the administration was briefed by this person and his book had been published in 2002 and COVERED by most of the media. After reading it, I was merely shocked at how all of this was revealed in the press and to the Congress and to all the subcommittees and to many who are now the loudest critics yelling that they did not know, were not informed. I have not heard so many “we didn’t knows” since watching the last Nazi movie. Pollack was very specific about what to expect AND I think that his book buttresses my point, which was that Rumsfeld DELIBERATELY wanted to keep a small footprint in Iraq because of the recommendations of people like Pollack. THAT was also HIS recommendation. Read the book to find out why.
This one’s for you, TC, because as far as I remember you still haven’t admitted that the Saddam - al Qaeda - 9/11 line was a crock of shit.
[quote=“Cheney: "There Was Never Any Evidence … Iraq Was Involved In 9/11"”]In an interview with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren, former [color=#000000]
Vice President Dick Cheney admitted that there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11th attacks.
[/color]
“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9-11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” he told the “On The Record” host in a joint interview with his daughter Liz. "There was “some reporting early on … but that was never borne out,” Cheney said. “George … did say and did testify that there was an ongoing relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but no proof that Iraq was involved in 9-11.”
Asked in 2004 if Iraq was involved in the attacks, Cheney was less clear, telling CNBC, “We don’t know.” He criticized the “irresponsible” media for reporting that there were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. “There clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming,” Cheney said. In other interviews around that time, Cheney was similarly vague, suggesting that the link could exist. President Bush repeatedly encouraged a false connection between Iraq and the attacks, although he later claimed to have only said there was a “relationship” between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[/quote]
Cheney and Bush stated that al Qaeda had been cooperating or in contact with Iraqi intelligence and military officers.
Cheney and Bush never said Iraq was involved in 911.
Cheney and Bush said we needed to act against Saddam because he could cooperate with al Qaeda and that the two had had ties in the past. What if, for example, Saddam were to give chemical, nuclear or bio weapons to al Qaeda.
I don’t believe you’re being honest or engaging in good faith. But, in case I’m wrong, reread the final sentence from the quoted material. You’ll get the picture.
As it happens, I just stumbled across another interesting piece on selling the war. This, by Christopher Hitchens, writing on Israeli historian/ journalist Amos Elon.
[quote=“Slate”]In the run-up to the intervention in Iraq, the United States had approached the Israelis and asked how many citizens they had who spoke “Iraqi Arabic”—i.e., who had lived in Iraq before they had left or been expelled and who understood the local idioms and vernacular. The answer was that there were still quite a few. A group of these was put aboard an AWACS plane that flew high over Iraqi airspace and asked to listen in to radio traffic between Iraqi officers as the date of the Bush ultimatum to Saddam drew nearer.
When debriefed, all the former Iraqi Jews were of one opinion: Saddam’s army would not fight, and many of its soldiers had already decided to melt away when the attack began. I thought this was a mildly interesting anecdote and indeed told him so, on the Watergate balcony where we happened to be standing. He was exasperated with me. “Don’t you see?” he said. [color=#000000]“This means that all the ‘shock and awe,’ all the damage to Baghdad, all of that, was completely needless? We could have brought down Saddam without smashing Iraq.” I have been brooding on this ever since.[/color][/quote]
Now you are talking about something completely different. Why? Are you conceding that you misphrased your statement? Are you agreeing with me that there is no proof that Bush or Cheney ever said Iraq was involved with 911 though they did point to connections between Saddam’s henchmen and al Qaeda?
So, this is one assessment from one individual. Should we revisit the entire group of experts that were asked to provide input before the decision was made. According to the NY Times writer whose name escapes me, the shock and awe broke down all communication between Saddam in Baghdad and Fedayeen forces in cities and was crucial in disrupting coordination efforts for the troops that would fight: the Republican Guard.
Anyway, one person’s view. He provided “input” and others provided “input” and he does not understand why his “input” did not lead to the administration adopting policies that reflected that “input” in its “output.” Want to talk about any policy and look at it in hindsight? I can find lots of second guessing by experts for each and every one. Up to you…
just curious…how did this… “In an interview with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren, former Vice President Dick Cheney admitted that there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11th attacks.”
morph into this… “…because as far as I remember you still haven’t admitted that the Saddam - al Qaeda - 9/11 line was a crock of shit.”
Is this some weird Canadian connect-the-imaginary dots thing?
Now you are talking about something completely different. Why? Are you conceding that you misphrased your statement? Are you agreeing with me that there is no proof that Bush or Cheney ever said Iraq was involved with 911 though they did point to connections between Saddam’s henchmen and al Qaeda?
So, this is one assessment from one individual. Should we revisit the entire group of experts that were asked to provide input before the decision was made. According to the NY Times writer whose name escapes me, the shock and awe broke down all communication between Saddam in Baghdad and Fedayeen forces in cities and was crucial in disrupting coordination efforts for the troops that would fight: the Republican Guard.
Anyway, one person’s view. He provided “input” and others provided “input” and he does not understand why his “input” did not lead to the administration adopting policies that reflected that “input” in its “output.” Want to talk about any policy and look at it in hindsight? I can find lots of second guessing by experts for each and every one. Up to you…[/quote]
One person’s view? But doesn’t that mess up the ‘consensus’? Or does that only apply for arguments for and not against?
Anyway, Jaboney probably doesn’t realize that US history has been rewritten due to Bush’s ‘No Left Child’ program. I like the part where the heroic Richard Cheney travels back in time to help Joe McCarthy weed out the Commie menace and save America once again.
[quote]When the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda’s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney snarkily replied, “That’s not my recollection, but I haven’t read his book.”
In fact, it was Cheney who “missed” the warning signs, not Clarke. New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” reprinted some of Clarke’s emphatic e-mails warning the Bush administration of the al Qaeda threat throughout 2001:
[b]
“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)
“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)
“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)
“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)
“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)
“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)
“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)[/b]
Similarly, Time Magazine reported in 2002 that Clarke had an extensive plan to “roll back” al Qaeda — a plan that languished for months, ignored by senior Bush officials:
Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. … In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, “Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.” … The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.
Cheney needs to check his “recollections” before blaming former employees for the single most devestating attack in American history.[/quote]
You are a bit confused here… as usual… Who ever said there was “consensus” about invading Iraq? Quite the opposite, Bush and his team said we had to invade because they were not willing to risk a Saddam with dangerous wmds who might cooperate with al Qaeda. Most of the world disagreed but no one ever said that there was a consensus on this issue.
I assume that you are trying to be funny by tangetially referring to the debate about global warming. Here, we are always informed that there is a “consensus” but either that consensus is so broad or to suggest that there is none leads to frantic denunciations.
Let me give you an example of this type of debate. Say Bush and Cheney were to vociferously deny that the entire world and every country in it including Saddam’s Iraq had not come to a “consensus” about the US led invasion of Iraq being a good thing. Then, let’s say that defenders of Bush and Cheney and their “consensus” either excused away Saddam’s threats and total disapproval of said invasion as being “part of that consensus” or attacked anyone who questioned this as being a “consensus” for being unable to read. Then, let’s say the Bush administration actually appoints Saddam to serve as one of the vice chairs of its invasion effort including public relations efforts to try to win over those who were still undecided. Sound plausible? Your call.
