George W Bushy And Blair - The Reason For Recent Terrorism? A full discussion of this (hopefully)

[gaea 0]

Oh, I certainly agree that Saddam was a *BLEEP*. He was a brutal dictator with a great deal of blood on his hands. And I am glad to see him gone--even though I'm much less pleased by the so called "independent" *cough* puppet *cough* government that has taken his place. But he did not pose a threat to the US, as was continuously claimed by the Bush Administration.

 

As far as the "bad intelligence" fiasco goes, I'd argue that the Bush administration was well aware of the reality of the situation, but instead rejected the major findings of the intelligence community in lue of cherry picked "evidence" that backed-up their pro-war agenda (hence the entire purpose of the "Office of Special Plans"). The evidence for this accusation is quite numerous. It'd take all day to write everything, so I'll name some of the most prominent facts.

 

In September 2002 (six months before the invasion) Tyler Drumheller (then head of the CIA's covert branch for all of Europe) sent a report to George Tenant (then head of the CIA) who hand delivered it to both Bush and Cheney, among others. The report contained very accurate information (in hind-sight) from a high ranking official within Saddam's Cabinet--Naji Sabri, the then foreign minister of Iraq (a huge position of power/intel). The report, stating that Saddam possessed no weapons of mass destruction, was blatantly ignored by the Whitehouse.

 

Contrast that with the case of the alleged "seven mobile weapons laboratories,"--an allegation that made it's way both into Collin Powell's speech to the UN, as well Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. The accusation stemmed from a Pentagon source by the name of "Curveball" (ironic, huh?). The one US intelligence operative that met with Curveball concluded in his report that Curveball "was an alcoholic and utterly useless as a source...", even stating that there were questions about whether Curve Ball "was who he said he was." Yup, real reliable. *rolls his eyes*

 

Then there was the alleged case of Iraq attempting to buy "500 tons of uranium" from Niger. The special CIA envoy, Joseph Wilson, sent to investigate the case concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," and that reports claiming such were "unequivocally wrong." (His wife was then ousted from her position as a CIA operative in retribution). By early 2002 both the CIA and the State Department had submitted reports saying that the yellow cake papers were obvious forgeries. The International Atomic Energy Agency also reached the same conclusion (though barely before the start of the war). Evidently it only took them a "matter of hours" to come to this conclusion. Want to know why? The dates listed were blatantly wrong, and the names of many of the Nigerian officials were misspelled! Amusingly enough, one of the major tools the IAEA used in their investigation was Google!

 

And the list goes on.

 

It's also worth noting the amount of reports that suggest the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq, regardless of the intelligence uncovered. The most famous of these reports would have to be the Downing Street memo (which was actually the minutes from British PM Blair's meeting on July 23 2002). The meeting included the following sentences: "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." More about the Downing street memo can be found here and here.

 

There are many, many more. But I'll refrain from writting late into the night (especially as probably no one will bother to read it).

[s2k6 0]

I think that this is all a plot to get oil. Bush hires osama to give him a reason to go bomb iraq, and sends thousands of kids to die in iraq, then he takes over the oil supply. It's all about the money.

[shadowx 0]

Woah! gaea you know your stuff! I always thought that both governments were stupid but this is taking the mick! The fact that the blatantly almost make up their evidence is amazing, im sure that people thought it before but here we have proof that they have invented reasons to invade.

 

and i agree partialy with s2k6, though im not sure if its solely oil, im sure most of it is but its probably to do with setting up permanent bases in the middle east and to me it seems like a way of silently invading. By "liberating" iraq they can easily set up the government (basically done already) and then control it (most likely being done now) like gaea said, a puppet government. The US and UK will never let go of the strings as long as bush, blair or any of their associates are in power. The only way that iraq qill ever be free is if there is a government in the US or UK that sets them free or if the iraqis fight back, and they are fighting back, through terrorism.

 

As far as the "bad intelligence" fiasco goes, I'd argue that the Bush administration was well aware of the reality of the situation,

Quite probably, they seem to be pretty good at lying, shame they cant hide the evidence of their lies though.

 

Then there was the alleged case of Iraq attempting to buy "500 tons of uranium" from Niger.

Only two things would have happened if this really did go through. no-one would know about it, or the whole world would turn up with cameras and give us good evidence. And the fact that the papers were said to be forged just ruins that excuse!

 

Amusingly enough, one of the major tools the IAEA used in their investigation was Google!

That makes me slightly worried. The future or world conflicts lies on google?! I know google is good but its not that good!

 

This war isnt being fought on the battle field its being fought in our cities and instead of people seeing terrorism as random acts of violence against us we need to see it for what it really is, retaliation strikes of a war. A war that was started by Blair and Bush invading iraq.

 

Maybe an invasion is what the terrorists wanted. they must have known that bombing major cities would lead to retaliation and probably an invasion, maybe the terrorists are using the invasion to destroy confidence in the governments. Who knows?

[gaea 0]

Woah! gaea you know your stuff!

Thanks. It mostly comes from reading a lot of independent new sources. The two I'd most highly suggest are GNN (tons of diverse articles, updated almost hourly), and DemocracyNow! (Which also broadcasts video and audio news shows on hundreds of channels...check here to see if there is one in your area). I used to watch DN! a lot, but it took up too much time. So now I just skim through their headlines, and then get most of my other info from GNN.

 

and i agree partially with s2k6, though im not sure if its solely oil, im sure most of it is but its probably to do with setting up permanent bases in the middle east and to me it seems like a way of silently invading.

Quite an astute observation. While the war was partly about oil, it was equally about the corporatistation of a developing economy, and the creation of a US power structure within the Middle east (in an attempt to exert more western influence in the area, as well as providing a base of operation to attack the likes of Iran and Syria. Conventionally we've relied on our allies Israel, but they wanted an option which was completely under US control).

[shadowx 0]

but they wanted an option which was completely under US control.

Well it seems like theyre getting thier own way as usual. If only there was something i could do, i cant vote untill next year and i dont even know when the next election for blair is and theres absolutely nothing i can do about bush. It just seems wrong to let it all happen.

I think ill check out those news sources tomorrow as im just about to go out. Ill check back tomorrow and post again then

[Kioku 0]

I don't see why people complain about George W. Bush so much. Even if he did mess up, any United States President can only run two consecutive terms. Any next President the USA gets will surely cave into pressure from not only people complaining, but the international community and pull out of Iraq which will probably cause alot of *BLEEP* down there ( even without the US "occupying" ), and everyone will get angry yet again with America for pulling out. Go figure.

[no9t9 0]

the only saving grace of the united states is that bush can't be voted for another term. but that doesn't change the fact that the united states is full of people who voted for bush the second term.i can understand the first time where no one really knew what he was like and what he was capable of but after the first term and he did what he did, people STILL voted for him.anyone who complains that there was no other choice is wrong. they KNEW what bush was like but they did not know how kerry would be. I just hope their next president has some brains so they can fix what bush has screwed up.

[gaea 0]

I don't see why people complain about George W. Bush so much. Even if he did mess up, any United States President can only run two consecutive terms.

True, however the amount of damage that Bush has done to the US (destroying our foreign image, and completely decimating our civil liberties, etc) is going to take much, much longer to heal. Most likely the next president--be they republican or democrat--will continue the current domestic spying programs. Note the plural. Most of America only is aware of the situation in which they monitor calls comming from out of the country, with a supected terrorist at one end. It goes so much deeper than that though. For instance, most of the large phone companies (ATT, Bellsouth, Version, and a few others) have installed hardware components to allow the government to monitor thousands of calls at a time (I don't have the evidence to back this up on hand, but if anyone wants to see it I can find the reports). Of course there were already domestic spy programs advanced by other presidents...but there is no reason to make it worse.

 

Any next President the USA gets will surely cave into pressure from not only people complaining, but the international community and pull out of Iraq which will probably cause a lot of *BLEEP* down there ( even without the US "occupying" ), and everyone will get angry yet again with America for pulling out. Go figure.

I do agree that portions of Iraq will continue to see insurgent fighting. But, aside from a few hot spots, I think that the majority of the country will be fine. Then again, that depends on numerous things, least of all being the US pulling out *completely* (not very likely, as we've constructed over ten permanent bases within the country). An ideal situation would probably include quickly phasing out american troops in favor of a UN peace-keeping force. Then reducing that pressence slowly over the course of a few years.

 

P.S. Starting tomorrow I'll be moving down to boston, and so won't be able to respond to this thread for a bit. Rest assured I'll be back in (hopefully) a few days when I'm settled in and we pay for the internet.

Edited August 26, 2006 by gaea (see edit history)

[Kioku 0]

The Patriot ACT was put forth due to branches of government being unable to communicated. Military intelligence wasn't able to relay information that could've possibly prevented 9/11, but certain laws forbidded it. I support the Patriot ACT to an extent and really don't care if phone companies listen in to my calls at all. I really don't have anything to hide.