"The Dark Side": How the US ended up in Iraq.

Bronx Warlord said:
Like Bill Clinton... and this is just the stuff we know about. There both dirty bro, reps and dems. The whole stinking rotten bunch of them.

As I said, a difference between corruption and (potential) treason.

You replay makes me wonder... I do think that there will be people who from the present till their meeting of St. Peter, be it in 10, 20, or 80 years from now, will have involuntary spasms whenever the word impeachment is uttered. They will sputter out "clinton" on blogs, internet forums, or to officemates before falling over in convulsions.

Its a water cooler, circa 2016.

Peter (to James, while Bob is busy googling "liberal nambla kennedy" in the next cube over): Hey James, how's your summer going?
James: Great. The mild spring means our peach tree is gonna have a ton of peaches!
Peter: That's great. Have you ever tried distilling it? I like a good peach Ameretto.
James: Hmm... hadn't thought of that. I do like mint liquors. Maybe, I'll try it.... lets see how would the recipe go... put in peach, mint
Bob: HE LIED HE LIED YES HE LIED HILLARY HILLARY #$#$AEWDFFDQEF!#$#$ (falls over)
Peter: Anyway, that sounds tasty. Let me know when I can come over and pick some of those bad boys.
James: Excellent. Now let's go to Massachusetts, get married and turn the neighbors kids gay.
Peter: <winks>
 
.Shane. said:
Because...
1. The average person doesn't get it.
2. Bush is the "decider".

As an aside, I do blame Cheney for certain things. I certainly believe he's done things worthy of impeachment.
Perhaps so. And yet, if you visit some of the bizarrely radical liberal websites (DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground.com, etc....) you'll find them constantly blaming Karl Rove and Dick Cheney for being the masterminds behind the throne, or whatever - and yet they still hate President Bush with a passion.

I guess if I want sense, or even consistency, I should look elsewhere than the Loony Left.

You'd have to watch it to see if the name is apt or not. Did you watch it? I'm guessing no. Frontline actually has a very good record of producing some excellent, very in-depth pieces regarding the Iraq war.
No, I haven't. How long is it? Is it a full length documentary, or is it a short film?

Sidenote: the joking about France is old, petty, and, essentially, ********. Can we just drop it already? Probably not, as this is the internet...
Come on. Americans have to have someone to joke about, and the Canucks and residents of New Jersey just don't cut it sometimes. ;) At least, despite the joking, we've still got their back when they need it. I wish I could say the same about them having ours.
 
Elrohir said:
Perhaps so. And yet, if you visit some of the bizarrely radical liberal websites (DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground.com, etc....) you'll find them constantly blaming Karl Rove and Dick Cheney for being the masterminds behind the throne, or whatever - and yet they still hate President Bush with a passion.

Well, I'm not a fan of Bush either. I do think that he leans heavily on others for direction and advice. This should be very clear anytime you see him speak off the cuff, he can barely articulate a point of view.

I fault him for not being able admit his mistakes (Rumsfield), promoting sycophants rather than talented individuals (the current Attn. General), having a rigid mindset, and making poor decisions in areas that I think are more his stock and trade (promotion of religion, destruction of legitimate scientific endeavors).

But, I don't think he "lied" about the war. Misled? Maybe. I definitely think he/Cheney/et al gamed the results. So, I'm not sure Bush meets the threshhold for impeachment, which I think Cheney surely will should anything come out of the Libbey stuff. And, I think he's got a couple war criminals in his cabinet. So, I guess, by comparison, he's not that bad! ;)
No, I haven't. How long is it? Is it a full length documentary, or is it a short film?
Frontline is a show on PBS, its typically 1.5 to 2 hours. It'll probably be available on the website, if its not already.

Come on. Americans have to have someone to joke about, and the Canucks and residents of New Jersey just don't cut it sometimes. ;) At least, despite the joking, we've still got their back when they need it. I wish I could say the same about them having ours.

This is exactly why I think its lame. You pretend its a joke, but your last sentence unmasks your (unfair) animosity.
 
.Shane. said:
Well, I'm not a fan of Bush either. I do think that he leans heavily on others for direction and advice. This should be very clear anytime you see him speak off the cuff, he can barely articulate a point of view.

I fault him for not being able admit his mistakes (Rumsfield), promoting sycophants rather than talented individuals (the current Attn. General), having a rigid mindset, and making poor decisions in areas that I think are more his stock and trade (promotion of religion, destruction of legitimate scientific endeavors).
But do you think he is being controlled by Karl Rove or Dick Cheney? A lot of people seem to, which really
mystifies me, especially when, a sentence later, they start bashing Bush. Just make up your mind who's at fault, already!

I don't like Gonzales either. I don't think Bush has been a perfect President, but I think he's done much better than Al Gore or John Kerry would have done.

But, I don't think he "lied" about the war. Misled? Maybe. I definitely think he/Cheney/et al gamed the results. So, I'm not sure Bush meets the threshhold for impeachment, which I think Cheney surely will should anything come out of the Libbey stuff. And, I think he's got a couple war criminals in his cabinet. So, I guess, by comparison, he's not that bad! ;)
First, pretty much everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD in 2003. It wasn't just the US, it was the Israeli's, and Brits, and even the French. Republicans and Democrats agreed that they did; it wasn't like Bush just came up with it on his own.

War criminals? How do you get from supposedly misleading the American people to becoming a war criminal?

Frontline is a show on PBS, its typically 1.5 to 2 hours. It'll probably be available on the website, if its not already.
Ahh, I see. Well, to be blunt, I don't care enough to devote two hours of my time to that.

This is exactly why I think its lame. You pretend its a joke, but your last sentence unmasks your (unfair) animosity.
It's a joke, that reflects real feelings. I say things like that about France because they're amusing, but also because I think the French government has stabbed us in the back, and has done a terrible job, not only in governing their society, but in dealing with North Korea and Iran. I don't hate Frenchmen, or France, I just dislike their government, and find it amusing to poke a little fun at them every now and then.
 
Elrohir said:
But do you think he is being controlled by Karl Rove or Dick Cheney? A lot of people seem to, which really
mystifies me, especially when, a sentence later, they start bashing Bush. Just make up your mind who's at fault, already!

Controlled? Not in the sense that I think he has a chip in his neck. But, I think he's a bear of very little brain. He relies on his advisors very heavily and he's very insulated so he gets very little dissenting opinion that isn't already filtered.

First, pretty much everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD in 2003. It wasn't just the US, it was the Israeli's, and Brits, and even the French. Republicans and Democrats agreed that they did; it wasn't like Bush just came up with it on his own.

Not exactly. I believed him too, but that's because he gamed it. They made the case that the neo-cons described in policy memos in the late 1990s.

War criminals? How do you get from supposedly misleading the American people to becoming a war criminal?
I consider Gonalez and Rumsfield war criminals due to their on the record advocacy of terror and circumvention of the GC. God knows what they advocated/did off the record.

Ahh, I see. Well, to be blunt, I don't care enough to devote two hours of my time to that.

Esp. if it disagrees with your world view.

It's a joke, that reflects real feelings. I say things like that about France because they're amusing, but also because I think the French government has stabbed us in the back

Well, there are a lot of French people who read the forum, and I think its disrespectful and tired. I feel the same way when people say idiotic and unfounded things about the US or California. But, this forum is awash in ridiculous and gross stereotypes. Its the stock and trade of many forum posters.
 
Here is the full description from the PBS website, this alone is an interesting read:

Amid revelations about faulty prewar intelligence and a scandal surrounding the indictment of the vice president's chief of staff and presidential adviser, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, FRONTLINE goes behind the headlines to investigate the internal war that was waged between the intelligence community and Richard Bruce Cheney, the most powerful vice president in the nation's history.

"A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies," Cheney told Americans just after 9/11. He warned the public that the government would have to operate on the "dark side."

In "The Dark Side," FRONTLINE tells the story of the vice president's role as the chief architect of the war on terror, and his battle with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet for control of the "dark side." Drawing on more than 40 interviews and thousands of documents, the film provides a step-by-step examination of what happened inside the councils of war.

Early in the Bush administration, Cheney placed a group of allies throughout the government who advocated a robust and pre-emptive foreign policy, especially regarding Iraq. But a potential obstacle was Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton administration who had survived the transition by bypassing Cheney and creating a personal bond with the president.

After the attacks on 9/11, Cheney seized the initiative and pushed for expanding presidential power, transforming America's intelligence agencies and bringing the war on terror to Iraq. Cheney's primary ally in this effort was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"You have this wiring diagram that we all know of about national security, but now there's a new line on it. There's a line from the vice president directly to the secretary of defense, and it's as though there's a private line, private communication between those two," former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke tells FRONTLINE.

In the initial stages of the war on terror, Tenet's CIA was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with the president that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the agency and Tenet. Through interviews with DoD staffers who sifted through mountains of raw intelligence, FRONTLINE details how questionable intelligence was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public.

From stories of Iraq buying yellowcake uranium from Niger to claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, "The Dark Side" dissects the now-familiar assertions that led the nation to war. The program also receounts the vice president's unprecedented visits to the CIA, where he questioned mid-level analysts on their conclusions. CIA officers who were there at the time say the message was clear: Cheney wanted evidence that Iraq was a threat.

At the center of the administration's case for war was a classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that found evidence of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. But Paul Pillar, one of the report's principal authors, now admits to FRONTLINE that the NIE was written quickly in a highly politicized environment, one in which the decision to go to war had already been made. Pillar also reveals that he regrets participating in writing a subsequent public "white paper" on Iraqi WMD. "What was the purpose of it? The purpose was to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public. Is it proper for the intelligence community to publish papers for that purpose? I don't think so, and I regret having had a role in it," Pillar says.

For the first time, FRONTLINE tells of George Tenet's personal struggle in the run-up to the Iraq war through the accounts of his closest advisers.

"He, I think, asked himself whether or not he wanted to continue on that road and to be part of it. And I think there was a lot of agonizing that George went through about what would be in the best interest of the country and national interest, or whether or not he would stay in that position and continue along a course that I think he had misgivings about," says John Brennan, former deputy executive director of the CIA.

Tenet chose to stay, but after the failure to find Iraqi WMD, the tension between the agency and Cheney's allies grew to the point that some in the administration believed the CIA had launched a covert war to undermine the president. In response, Cheney's office waged a campaign to distance itself from the prewar intelligence the vice president had helped to cultivate. Under pressure, Tenet resigned. Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, would later admit to leaking key sections of the NIE -- authorized, he says, by Cheney. Libby also stated that the vice president told him that President Bush had declassified the material. Insiders tell FRONTLINE that the leak was part of the battle between the vice president and the CIA -- a battle that many believe has destroyed the CIA.

<all bold, color mine>
 
Now here is this giant enemy crab. Hit it's weak spot for MASSIVE DAMAGE!
 
Well for those who haven't seen the documentary or are too busy to spend the time watching it (however not too busy to comment on the topic) it documents Cheney's efforts behind the scenes to undercut CIA analysis and set up an independent channel for gaining questionable intelligence about Iraq and pushing that information on to the president. I think George Tenant (a Clinton holdover for you right-wing fanatics) comes off the worst as he essentially rolled over on the independence and integrity of the CIA so as not to damage his career and keep himself in the loop of power players. From my reading of the news these things have done incredible damage to the morale and capabilities of the CIA. And we see the results when intelligence is obtained with a specific political goal in mind rather than objectively.
 
Its wierd I always thought that we liberated the Iraqis as a re-engagement of the first Gulf War. Its not like Sadam violated the cease fire by trying to shot down coalition planes patroling the "no fly zone" on a daily basis or the 14 (maybe it was 17, but once was to many) UN resolutions he violated or the violation of the cease fire when he used helicoptors to comit small scale genocide on the shiits or for violating sanctions by exporting oil that he sould not have been or or or or or the list goes on and on and on..........
 
.Shane. said:
Controlled? Not in the sense that I think he has a chip in his neck. But, I think he's a bear of very little brain. He relies on his advisors very heavily and he's very insulated so he gets very little dissenting opinion that isn't already filtered.
OK. That's your opinion. I'm not quite sure what to say to this, as you've obviously made up your mind.

Not exactly. I believed him too, but that's because he gamed it. They made the case that the neo-cons described in policy memos in the late 1990s.
Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. (And it turns out, they were right - there were still piles of mustard gas and sarin in Iraq; see the thread on it)

I consider Gonalez and Rumsfield war criminals due to their on the record advocacy of terror and circumvention of the GC. God knows what they advocated/did off the record.
Their "circumvention" of the Geneva Convention has been perfectly legal, and certainly nothing worth a war crimes trial.

Esp. if it disagrees with your world view.
Not really. I wouldn't sit through a two-hour documentary on politics if it was from a conservative view, either, unless I had absolutely nothing else to do. (And with Civ4, that doesn't happen very often anymore)

Well, there are a lot of French people who read the forum, and I think its disrespectful and tired. I feel the same way when people say idiotic and unfounded things about the US or California. But, this forum is awash in ridiculous and gross stereotypes. Its the stock and trade of many forum posters.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. Let's leave it at that, shall we?
 
Elrohir said:
OK. That's your opinion. I'm not quite sure what to say to this, as you've obviously made up your mind.

Remember, this is the president who said he doesn't read the newspaper and couldn't finish the "fool me once" quote. And, when I say he's not that bright, I mean that in a very relative sense. Meaning, for the job he has, I think his intellect is on the low side of the scale. But, I don't think he's a moron. But, that's why we have advisors, right?

I'm open-minded about it, but everything I've observed and read demonstrate he is not a strong-willed or original thinker.

Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. (And it turns out, they were right - there were still piles of mustard gas and sarin in Iraq; see the thread on it)

Those are both debateable assertions. The 2nd, I'll leave out as its too new, its still breaking news that being sifted. We can revisit it later. As to the first, again, remember, the US largely shaped the case so, when I say "I believed that WMD were there", which I did, it was because I was reading the message that the president was painting and I didn't think they'd make up something so heinous. Additionally, I didn't have access to all the counter-evidence that was never presented to the public. Turns out I was wrong. I don't think they lied, but I think they gamed the results. And that is , by this point, an established fact.

Regardless, I was against the war then....

Their "circumvention" of the Geneva Convention has been perfectly legal, and certainly nothing worth a war crimes trial.

Its not legal because they say it is. I've not read one independent opinion that agrees that what they did is "legal" in the sense of international law.

Not really. I wouldn't sit through a two-hour documentary on politics if it was from a conservative view, either, unless I had absolutely nothing else to do. (And with Civ4, that doesn't happen very often anymore)

Fair enough. Just an FYI, you can view it in short segments from the PBS website, which is probably what I'll do.
 
Elrohir said:
Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. (And it turns out, they were right - there were still piles of mustard gas and sarin in Iraq; see the thread on it)

Oh and see the massive debunking:
 
It is obvious that Cheney is a smart and driven guy, Bush is well... less so.
Cheney is obviously pulling the string of puppet Bush.
Same old things I've been hearing for more than half a decade, never credibly supported.

If this is the conclusion PBS wants people to draw, then IMO the show isn't worth the cost of the electricity it would take to change the channel.
 
malclave said:
Same old things I've been hearing for more than half a decade, never credibly supported.

If this is the conclusion PBS wants people to draw, then IMO the show isn't worth the cost of the electricity it would take to change the channel.

Where does it say that in the thing I quoted? You don't even say who you're quoting. Ah, there it is, you're quoting the OP's opinion. Wow. Nice misrepresentation. You quote the OP (but don't name him), then infer that your quote is PBS and thus dismiss it. Nice.

Frontline happens to be a very highly regarded and recognized investigatory news program, but, if it suits your purpose to dismiss it out of hand, so be it.

I love how people will just dismiss it so they can avoid reality.
 
.Shane. said:
Where does it say that in the thing I quoted? You don't even say who you're quoting. Ah, there it is, you're quoting the OP's opinion. Wow. Nice misrepresentation. You quote the OP (but don't name him), then infer that your quote is PBS and thus dismiss it. Nice.
The first post clearly indicated the the conclusion was "obvious" from PBS's presentation. The second, if not referring to the PBS presentation, is just off topic and a troll; I decided to give the post the benefit of the doubt.

Names were not quoted because I don't know who to attribute... the same statements have been made so many times over the last several years that they've lost meaning.

On the other hand, I'm looking forward to your future posts so I can make sure that each and every one of them correctly attributes quotes. :)
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/#morelink

I just watched it.

What can I say.

It pretty much absolves Bush.

Put most blame on Cheney and Rumsfeld
In another way, it put a whole lot of blame on George Tenet, for failing to do his job properly, and caving to pressure by Cheny and Rumsfeld.

Condoleeza Rice, same thing as Tenet, except, my interperetation, was she is just weak, like she really never had any kind of legs to stand on and just went with the winner.

It pretty much absolved Colin Powell.

very interesting.


It seems to say, Bush didn't recognize the struggle between the CIA and the new intelligence department at teh pentagon set up by Cheney, and Tenet, right in Afghanistan, was way behind on Iraq, as in had no intelligence whatsoever regarding Saddams WMD's.

When he recognized, that Cheney and Rumsfeld would become the new American heros, instead of tryign to give accurate information, and do his job, he decided to save his job, and tell Cheney what Cheney wanted to hear.

Seems to turn the Halliburton/war for oil thing on it's head, and surmises that the war was a "I don't trust the CIA, so I am taking charge" war.
 
Fallen Angel Lord said:
Cheney is obviously pulling the string of puppet Bush.

BTW: Does anyone care about the Iraq war any more, it is getting a bit old and dried out.

actually, thats the problem with the short attention span that those war criminals are hoping for. In due time, they think they can get away with invading other countries when the people "forgets". The masses have short attention span, most with short memories. Without the Media to help them remember. Things like the Iran-contra deals, massive deficits, Illegals wars will all be forgotten. Thats why there is always a need for ppl to keep bringing it up from time to time. So that no one will forget and make the same mistakes/crime again. And worse of all, letting those with blood in their hands get away with injustice.
 
.Shane. said:
@Neo...

I never really thought the war was about oil, specifically. Its about control. The neocons have been desiring this war since the first one ended.

The "first one" didn't end there was a cease fire not a declaration of peace and an end to hostilities.
 
Elrohir said:
Perhaps so. And yet, if you visit some of the bizarrely radical liberal websites (DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground.com, etc....) you'll find them constantly blaming Karl Rove and Dick Cheney for being the masterminds behind the throne, or whatever - and yet they still hate President Bush with a passion.

I guess if I want sense, or even consistency, I should look elsewhere than the Loony Left.

There were plenty of examples of Bush's moral corruption off his own bat.
So there's no point letting him off.

The link between your first and second paragraph is such that your second paragraph is actually accurate.
I'd suggest back to school.


Or was this rhetoric 101?
 
Back
Top Bottom