> From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Two days before the war [SNIP] large
> caravans of people and things, including some of the
> top 55 [most wanted] Iraqis, going to Syria," Gen.
> DeLong explained.
> According to you he's definitely lying because he
> doesn't know where they are now?
There's large caravans of "people and things" that travel into
Wisconsin every night too, but that doesn't mean they contain WMD. In
this case it's drunks. Who knows, maybe the bars close later Syria
than in Iraq?
> ??? You're not being clear. You state the whole thing
> is wrong but can't provide details.
The whole "we invaded Iraq because of WMD/Terrorism/atrocities/cheap
beer" argument is pointless. Mr. Bush has already stated, immediately
after the war, the main reason that he invaded Iraq was because he
thought it was the US's duty to liberate people. This is documented
by Mr. Woodward.
The rest of the reasons are open to debate because they don't make
factual or logical sense. Which is because the decision was not made
in a factual or logical way. Mr. Bush simply felt it was the right
thing to do and he's already said so.
Since then he just picks the reason that sounds best based on the
morning headlines.
> Franks also saw the same info and was convinced the
> threat was real.
Wrong - read his book or Mr. Woodward's book. Gen Franks was brought
into the know once the decision was made. Yes, he saw some
intelligence, but not the key stuff. Only the President's direct
reports and key advisors saw that and Mr. Franks wasn't one of them.
Gen. Franks was asked by the Pentagon to plan for an Iraq invasion as
well as a North Korean invasion and about 10 other contingencies. He
was given classified intelligence to do this, but not the full
workups.
I believe the only non-direct reports that had full access were Dr.
Wolfowitz and Mr. Libbey.
> That's a ridiculous way to spin it. He's saying let's
> not sit back and do nothing. Let's disrupt them and
> the nations that support them before the can attack
> again.
Yes, but according to Mr. Bush there has never been ANY evidence
linking Al Queda to Iraq. He's said this plainly. Therefore invading
Iraq disrupted "them", but not Al Queda.
> Why is it rediculous? Because you just don't want to
> believe it?
I'll believe anything that has proof - there is none, zero, zip, zilch
proof that Al Queda has had anything to do with Iraq. Mr. Bush has
explicitly stated this.
This also makes sense based on Mr. Hussein's personality - he's a
secular megalomanic. He would have nothing to do with Al Queda unless
it benefitted him and nobody has provided motive, much less evidence
of a connection.
> You can witness a shooting and see the guy with the
> gun run away. Unless he drops the gun what evidence do
> you have other then what you'd seen?
So you're saying a United States General, at war in Iraq, witnessed
WMD travelling to Syria, but didn't fire a shot?
> What are you talking about? The UN, Britain, Russia,
> Egypt, Jordan and every other country thought Iraq had
> WMDs. That was never disputed.
Wrong. They said that Iraq PROBABLY had WMD and that it had
PREVIOUSLY had them and been asked to destroy them, but PROBABLY
hadn't. That's what the weapons inspectors were verifying since the
first Iraq war.
If the UN had PROOF that Iraq had WMD than what were the weapons
inspectors for? They were to verify a theory.
Further if the justification for war was over WMD, since we havn't
found any, why isnt' the war a mistake?
Ironically the UN, and, "the world", now says that Iraq PROBABLY
destroyed them. So if the "probably' was enough to go to provide
retroactive justification, is it enough to justify leaving? (not that
I'm advocating that)
> Are you messing with my head?
Yes! we're both quite gifted at that apparently :)
> You ignore Powells own statement
No, I'm referring to what Powell advised BEFORE the war. The "Powell
doctrine" is widely publicised and in it he rejects the idea of war in
Iraq. What you're referring to is his wobbly General's spine he
displayed AFTER - that is, when the commander-in-chief says jump, you
say you support jumping.
> So now it's Zinni against everyone else.
Gen Zinni, Gen Powell, Undersecretary Armitage, etc. were all CIVILIAN
advisors that the President asked to serve in the role of advisors.
Gen Franks and Gen Delong were/are military, asked to execute orders.
That is, once the decision is made to go to war, the military is
consulted on how best to win. They may be asked to provide a
strategic or tactical work up that can be used in making the decision,
but they are not policy advisors - the civilian former generals were.
> Don't we have proof Saddam was ready to start his
> nuclear program once the inspectors were gone?
We' ve got proof of nothing - mostly because Mr. Hussein was nuts and
his government was on the verge of collapse. In any event, North
Korea says they have them. But according to Mr. Bush the CIA is "just
guessing."
> First you say Powell didn't support the war now you
> say he's a foul because he did.
There's no conflict. Secretary Powell didn't support the war and that
is well documented. However, he followed orders once Mr. Bush had
committed to invading Iraq. This is all well explained in Mr.
Woodward's book.
So, to clear up the Mr. Powell thing for you:
1.) Mr. Powell didn't support GOING to war in Iraq or any other
country. This is why he was Secretary of State. He favored diplomacy
and thought/thinks war was the result of a failure of diplomacy.
2.) Once Mr. Bush made it clear that he disagreed with Mr. Powell and
was going to invade Iraq despite Mr. Powell's advice, Mr. Powell
agreed to help out as needed.
Most probably this is because Mr. Powell is a life long soldier. He's
used to executing orders he doesn't agree with. But, in the end, he
feels it's his duty to do as commanded.
The conflict isn't mine, it's Mr. Powell's.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
