Thank you, Mr. President

[Tim Elston]

To put things in context according to my beliefs, prophetically speaking, I don't know that Iraq could have been avoided. I see the warring of the recent/current years as important tremors leading up to the final earthquake so to speak. Does Armageddon sound familiar?

Take heed that the light that is in you be not darkness. If it becomes the rationale for foreign policy that wreaks havoc and violence that otherwise could be avoided, how is it better than the religious perspective of militant Islamism?

I'm sure we don't agree on this and that's perfectly okay. Furthermore, I could be wrong all together. I just wanted you to understand where I'm coming from. I just believe that many of the wars that we look at naturally are more spiritually connected that we often realize.

I know that this is a very simplistic approach to the grander picture.

Thanks for the kind tone of this. I appreciate it.

[Tim Elston]

Tim were you against the war from the beginning?

No. I supported the decision to attack Iraq when it happened. I did not know at the time that the administration was intentionally fronting false evidence of Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program and that its ostensible diplomatic efforts leading up to the war were insincere. I did not know that the Vice President's office had coerced the CIA to endorse evidence that its analysts found doubtful. I did not know that the decision to attack Iraq was made for strategic rather than defensive purposes and that, for that reason, the administration had thwarted the weapons inspection process by which it was becoming increasingly doubtful that Iraq possessed WMD.

I have always believed that an administration should not go to war except cautiously, reluctantly, and under dire circumstances. When I learned the circumstances that led to our attack on Iraq, I realized that my trust had been betrayed.

[one love]

Tim were you against the war from the beginning?

No. I supported the decision to attack Iraq when it happened. I did not know at the time that the administration was intentionally fronting false evidence of Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program and that its ostensible diplomatic efforts leading up to the war were insincere. I did not know that the Vice President's office had coerced the CIA to endorse evidence that its analysts found doubtful. I did not know that the decision to attack Iraq was made for strategic rather than defensive purposes and that, for that reason, the administration had thwarted the weapons inspection process by which it was becoming increasingly doubtful that Iraq possessed WMD.

I have always believed that an administration should not go to war except cautiously, reluctantly, and under dire circumstances. When I learned the circumstances that led to our attack on Iraq, I realized that my trust had been betrayed.

Okay I appreciate your answer. I would love to know what convinces you that they coerced all of this. I have not seen or heard such convincing evidence, I really am interested to know how you got to this opinion.
Do you feel it is impossible that they believed there were weapons there based on the intelligence they received just as you did? Thanks Tim..

[MacUser]

I supported the decision to attack Iraq when it happened

Ok, From what we know from just posting here.
1) Tim was a Christian. BUT.. Now he knows better. We evolved from Monkeys.

2) Tim staunchly supported and promoted McCain for his enlightened moderate positions. BUT.. ultimately DIDN'T vote for him.

3) Tim now originally supported the decision on Iraq.. BUT now is against AND believes the dictator's killing machine would not have "possibly" killed as many as the war has.


Tim, this anti war agenda you keep harping/beating on is apparently just that - another agenda. In the end even YOU will change your mind.

[Tim Elston]

I would love to know what convinces you that they coerced all of this. I have not seen or heard such convincing evidence, I really am interested to know how you got to this opinion.

I am under no delusion that what is convincing to me is convincing to others. There are a lot of things that are as plain as day to me that others don't see, sometimes because of my deficient perspective, sometimes because of theirs.

Do you feel it is impossible that they believed there were weapons there based on the intelligence they received just as you did?

Yes, it is likely that they did believe it, at least the part that they did not deliberately gin up. Whether they believed that Saddam had WMD has never been the point for me. The point for me is that they wanted to believe it and they did not want to disbelieve it, and so wanting, they engaged in an unrelenting media campaign to sell the war on evidence that they cherry-picked, exaggerated, and fabricated. I am not saying, and have never said, that they didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. I actually do have a little sympathy for the need to sell a war to the public and the community of nations, but to be justified in doing so the threat must be real, the evidence certain, and the rationale sound. None of that was the case.

Consider this Senate Report that concludes that the administration engaged in an unrelenting campaign to sell the war by cherry-picking, exaggerating, and falsifying claims. Our memories are short, but there was a blitz on. The administration downplayed or ignored evidence that contradicted its claims, exaggerated claims that supported its agenda, and even made false statements about the existence of intelligence that supported its claims.

It is clear from the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine, and the testimony of Paul O'Neill that the administration was looking for an opportunity to attack Iraq from the early days of its office. After the invasion, the Vice President's office engaged in the Valerie Plame scandal in order to thwart a claim that undercut its central claim that Iraq was actively seeking Nigeria yellowcake for nuclear weapons production. Later a CIA agent told Ron Suskind that that the Vice President's office had asked the CIA to falsify intelligence of an an Iraq-al Qaida connection, and an FBI agent testified to undue pressure being placed on his division to come up with similar evidence.

By the way, in looking for sources on this stuff today I found an interesting article on the Democratic Peace Theory, which is well worth the read. In one section it contrasts Reagan's doctrine of containment with Bush's doctrine of pre-emption. That difference goes a long way in explaining my objection to the initiation of the Iraq War. We had Saddam contained. That satisified the Reagan doctrine. The Bush doctrine was not satisfied with containment, and we have dearly paid the price for that. So have the Iraqi people, who are not in fact free. They are an occupied country, and it remains to be seen whether they will become free in the future. It does not remain to be seen that nearly 100,000 of them have died as a result of a disengenuous agenda and cherry-picked, exaggerated, and falsified intelligence campaign.

[pastorables]

Yes, it is likely that they did believe it, at least the part that they did not deliberately gin up.

So you are a conspiracy theorist? Do you also believe that 9 - 11 was a ginned up hoax, specifically the attack on the Pentagon?

pa

[one love]

I would love to know what convinces you that they coerced all of this. I have not seen or heard such convincing evidence, I really am interested to know how you got to this opinion.

I am under no delusion that what is convincing to me is convincing to others. There are a lot of things that are as plain as day to me that others don't see, sometimes because of my deficient perspective, sometimes because of theirs.

Do you feel it is impossible that they believed there were weapons there based on the intelligence they received just as you did?

Yes, it is likely that they did believe it, at least the part that they did not deliberately gin up. Whether they believed that Saddam had WMD has never been the point for me. The point for me is that they wanted to believe it and they did not want to disbelieve it, and so wanting, they engaged in an unrelenting media campaign to sell the war on evidence that they cherry-picked, exaggerated, and fabricated. I am not saying, and have never said, that they didn't believe Saddam had WMDs. I actually do have a little sympathy for the need to sell a war to the public and the community of nations, but to be justified in doing so the threat must be real, the evidence certain, and the rationale sound. None of that was the case.

Consider this Senate Report that concludes that the administration engaged in an unrelenting campaign to sell the war by cherry-picking, exaggerating, and falsifying claims. Our memories are short, but there was a blitz on. The administration downplayed or ignored evidence that contradicted its claims, exaggerated claims that supported its agenda, and even made false statements about the existence of intelligence that supported its claims.

It is clear from the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine, and the testimony of Paul O'Neill that the administration was looking for an opportunity to attack Iraq from the early days of its office. After the invasion, the Vice President's office engaged in the Valerie Plame scandal in order to thwart a claim that undercut its central claim that Iraq was actively seeking Nigeria yellowcake for nuclear weapons production. Later a CIA agent told Ron Suskind that that the Vice President's office had asked the CIA to falsify intelligence of an an Iraq-al Qaida connection, and an FBI agent testified to undue pressure being placed on his division to come up with similar evidence.

By the way, in looking for sources on this stuff today I found an interesting article on the Democratic Peace Theory, which is well worth the read. In one section it contrasts Reagan's doctrine of containment with Bush's doctrine of pre-emption. That difference goes a long way in explaining my objection to the initiation of the Iraq War. We had Saddam contained. That satisified the Reagan doctrine. The Bush doctrine was not satisfied with containment, and we have dearly paid the price for that. So have the Iraqi people, who are not in fact free. They are an occupied country, and it remains to be seen whether they will become free in the future. It does not remain to be seen that nearly 100,000 of them have died as a result of a disengenuous agenda and cherry-picked, exaggerated, and falsified intelligence campaign.

Tim thankyou for the info give me some time to go through it then I will post again, appreciate it.

[MacUser]

Tim, do you believe everything you read from the media? Are you in that 11%?


Zogby Poll: Voters Believe Media Bias is Very Real
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1262

The vast majority of American voters believe media bias is alive and well – 83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11% believe the media doesn’t take political sides, a recent IPDI/Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet is based at George Washington University in Washington D.C.

[Tim Elston]

Tim thankyou for the info give me some time to go through it then I will post again, appreciate it.

Thanks, one love. It is a lot of reading; don't feel rushed. I like debating with intelligent and fair people, but when it gets down to sorting through lengthy reports and details, it does take a lot of time--time that I wonder whether I should be taking sometimes.

[Tim Elston]

So you are a conspiracy theorist? Do you also believe that 9 - 11 was a ginned up hoax, specifically the attack on the Pentagon?

I am confident that you saw me strongly disagree with Michael Olszta about that. I take The 9/11 Commission Report, which I have read in its entirety, to be credible. I also find credible the National Institute of Standards of Technology reports, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team of the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers andFinal Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, of which I have read substantial portions.

I have read most of the U.S. Senate's Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials were Substantiated by Intelligence Information Together with Additional and Minority Views, some conclusions of which are as follows:

"Conclusion 1: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community" -- Page 15

Several of the report's conclusions like this one demonstrate that the administration cherry-picked intelligence to sell the war.

"Conclusion 4: Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing" -- Page 38

This speaks to the exaggeration of evidence.

"Conclusion 5: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgements themselves." -- Page 50

This shows the exaggeration of evidence.

"Conclusion 6: The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information." -- Page 50

This speaks to the fabrication of evidence.

"Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence." -- Page 71

Fabrication.

"Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional [sic] statements, regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qa'ida were substantiated by intelligence information. However, policymakers' statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-Qa'ida." -- Page 72

Using intelligence to create a false impression.

"Conclusion 14: The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001." -- Page 72

Fabrication, as later known from CIA agent Rob Richer

"Conclusion 15: Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information." -- Page 82

Fabrication

"Conclusion 16: Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products." -- Page 88

Fabrication

"The Inspector General's report, based on extensive interviews and a thorough review of documents, concluded that the policy office in the Pentagon had expanded its role and mission from formulating policy and had inappropriately disseminated an alternative analysis drawing a link between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorists who carried out the attacks on September 11th that the Intelligence Community was unable to substantiate. The Committee uncovered this attempt by DoD officials to shape and politicize intelligence in order to bolster the Administration's policy of invasion in its July 2004 report." -- Page 89

Fabrication to sell the war

"...clandestine meetings in Rome and Paris between DoD policy officials and Iranians in 2001 and 2003, facilitated by Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian exile and fabricator implicated in the 1986 Iran-Contra scandal, in which intelligence was collected but kept from the Intelligence Community....Whereas the Committee's 2004 report presented evidence that the DoD policy office attempted to shape the CIA's terrorism analysis in late 2002 and, when it failed, prepared an alternative intelligence analysis denigrating the CIA for not embracing a link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the most recent report shows that the rogue actions of the office were not isolated....The actions of the DoD officials to blindly disregard the red flags over the role played by Mr. Ghorbanifar in these meetings and to wall-off the Intelligence Community from its activities and the information it obtained were improper and demonstrated a fundamental disdain for the Intelligence Community's role in vetting sensitive sources." -- Pages 88-90

Intrigue, conspiracy, rogue behavior

"Senior Administration officials repeatedly spoke in declarative and unequivocal terms about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and support for terrorists. These declarative statements were not substantiated. In the push to rally public support for the invasion of Iraq, Administration officials often failed to accurately portray what was known, what was not known, and what was suspected about Iraq and the threat it represented to our national security."

[CantBCoy]

I think I may have posted something like this before with little or no response, but I think this is as good a reason to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan as any.

[Tim Elston]

I think I may have posted something like this before with little or no response, but I think this is as good a reason to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan as any.

Do you believe in initiating wars in countries that border a country you might want to attack?

[one love]

I think I may have posted something like this before with little or no response, but I think this is as good a reason to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan as any.

thank you for this map. I have told people for a while this was one of the reasons. I am not trying to be a conspiracy guy or add to Tim's fuel but I am interested in what Tim says whether I agree right now or not. I do feel this was a part of a plan though. We have never had a really secure place right dead on the border like IRAQ and we know that IRAN is a threat to the security of the world.
I truly believe this was just as big a reason as any to strategically place us in that region.

Fire away but I agree with Cantboy here and I feel it is good we have this.

Tim is correct that WAR is evil but it is necessity in many cases.

[one love]

I think I may have posted something like this before with little or no response, but I think this is as good a reason to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan as any.

Do you believe in initiating wars in countries that border a country you might want to attack?

NO but I feel it was part of the over all strategy.

[Tim Elston]

NO but I feel it was part of the over all strategy.

Probably. If so and you don't believe in it, do you disagree with doing it?