The origin of Bush's plan to remove Saddam

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Your president is chosen, the persons who chose him are elected by the people

Nope, we do not elect the electors. They are submitted in a list to the state's chief election official. Now, if the electors "choose" the president based on what the people voted, then how is it that the people aren't choosing the president?

The electors can be viewed as merely a middle man. For instance, you give your friend some money to go buy you a coke. He brings you back the coke so you can drink it. Did you not buy the coke? Sure your friend could have said screw you and bought you a sprite instead, but he didn't. The point is, you bought the coke, it was your money. Your above arguments would say that your friend bought the coke, even though it was your money, and he did it for you.

Well that's as simple of an analogy as I can make, hope this helps you understand our process better.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Your president is chosen, the persons who chose him are elected by the people

Nope, we do not elect the electors. They are submitted in a list to the state's chief election official. Now, if the electors "choose" the president based on what the people voted, then how is it that the people aren't choosing the president?

The electors can be viewed as merely a middle man. For instance, you give your friend some money to go buy you a coke. He brings you back the coke so you can drink it. Did you not buy the coke? Sure your friend could have said screw you and bought you a sprite instead, but he didn't. The point is, you bought the coke, it was your money. Your above arguments would say that your friend bought the coke, even though it was your money, and he did it for you.

Well that's as simple of an analogy as I can make, hope this helps you understand our process better.

Instead of getting sidetracked about the electoral college, let's consider the situation at hand.

Our troops, who are wonderful, are doing a great job under circumstances thrust upon them by an incompetent administration whose policies on Iraq are bankrupt.

This was was sold to the American (and British) people as necessary. We now know that the "bad intel" used to justify the necessity was bogus, that contrary intel existed and was ignored. We know that the war that was predicted to last 6 months is now in its third year with no end in sight.

We know that there was piss-poor planning for the aftermath of the invasion by the DoD and the White House.

We know that the war has cost thousands of good American lives, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives.

This war was, in fact, optional, not necessary. The troops are certainly doing good things, but securing a peace and a stable democracy seems farther off now than it did in March 2003. There are lots of places in the world where good things can be achieved without wasting thousands of lives and hundreds of $Billions.

Place the blame where it's due, with the Commander in Chief and his Secretary of Defense.

The best support we can give the troops is to bring them home.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Place the blame where it's due, with the Commander in Chief and his Secretary of Defense

If you add the Representatives and the Senators to that voted to grant the power, I could agree....

Otherwise it is a witch hunt.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ViperPilot 0]

How many times must people be told and presented with obvious fact that there were hundreds of other people who supported the decision to use force against Saddam based on that intel. Seriously, how many times? But perhaps witch hunts are just more fun, eh?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

How many times must people be told and presented with obvious fact that there were hundreds of other people who supported the decision to use force against Saddam based on that intel.

what you fail to understand is they only saw the analysis that supported Bush's objectives, unlike the CIC and his direct advisors, they are not given access to the entire Intelligence cycle, nor do they have the ability to direct the cycle in the first place... the CIC does...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Place the blame where it's due, with the Commander in Chief and his Secretary of Defense

If you add the Representatives and the Senators to that voted to grant the power, I could agree....

Otherwise it is a witch hunt.

Wrong. They were persuaded by the biased analysis directed by the White House. They were victims of deception, just like you.

One common characteristic of fraud victims is an unwillingness to admit they've been duped even when the evidence is before them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

How many times must people be told and presented with obvious fact that there were hundreds of other people who supported the decision to use force against Saddam based on that intel. Seriously, how many times? But perhaps witch hunts are just more fun, eh?

So hundreds of people were victims of White House deception, OK. Does that make it right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

They were persuaded by the biased analysis directed by the White House

Bush and his cabinet have no say on what the CIA/NSA compile in their briefs, files, etc. The president in fact has very little power, our system is set up that way. The CIA/NSA act independent of the White House. They just provide intel on situations when asked (in addition to the standard "morning briefs"). However, the fact that Bush asked for intel on Iraq...even if he asked specifically for intel on WMDs in Iraq, it doesn't matter b/c at that point in time, it was the CIA's fault for distributing intel to Bush and his cabinet that said WMDs were indeed present. Bush did not make or direct that intel; he asked for it, and received it. What was in it was 100% up to the CIA, not Bush or any other cabinet member.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

They were persuaded by the biased analysis directed by the White House

Bush and his cabinet have no say on what the CIA/NSA compile in their briefs, files, etc. The president in fact has very little power, our system is set up that way. The CIA/NSA act independent of the White House.

rotflmao...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[ViperPilot 0]

Hey, you can conspiracy theorize all you want, but until you have proof that Bush personally, and purposely, directed the compiling of bad intel...

Show me proof and I will believe you.

[Zenister 0]

i wonder if you really understand how the chain of command works???

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[ViperPilot 0]

so you know more about the chain of command than a member of the military...well isn't that rich.

You need to understand that the US is designed to be a weak federal system. We have weak branhes of govt; they only can function strongly together. The govt is split into numerous entities so that we have what is called checks and balances. The president does not control the CIA, Supreme Court, NSA, FBI, State Dept, Health Dept, etc. He can provide directives, but does not run them (i.e. make intel reports). If he did, we'd be an autocracy and not a democracy. The CIA may ultimately work for the president, but that does not mean the president rules over them with an iron fist. Now, if you think Bush told the CIA to produce bogus intel reports, then provide proof and I'll believe you, that's all I'm saying.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Hey, you can conspiracy theorize all you want, but until you have proof that Bush personally, and purposely, directed the compiling of bad intel...

Show me proof and I will believe you.

Who does the director of the CIA report to? Who can require his resignation at a moment's notice?

Who does the director of NSA report to? Who can require his resignation at a moment's notice?

You reply was extremely naive.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

One common characteristic of fraud victims is an unwillingness to admit they've been duped even when the evidence is before them

Thats because your "evidence" is crap.

Go get some good stuff and then make your claims...So far all you have is some hints that might prove what you want to prove....And you are only looking at that stuff...The same thing you are claiming Bush did...How is that for Irony?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

One common characteristic of fraud victims is an unwillingness to admit they've been duped even when the evidence is before them

Thats because your "evidence" is crap.

Go get some good stuff and then make your claims...So far all you have is some hints that might prove what you want to prove....And you are only looking at that stuff...The same thing you are claiming Bush did...How is that for Irony?

The preponderance of evidence (the 2003 SOTU, Cheney's statements, Wolfitzer's statements, Powell's presentation to the UN, the UNSCOM reports, the Downing Street Memo, the "yellow cake" fiasco, and more) all support my position and contradict yours.

Sometimes it's wise to check for fire when there's a lot of smoke around.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ViperPilot 0]

The CIA and NSA report to Congress, the Natl Sec Advisor and the president. Who they report to is not the point. What is the point is that you argue that Bush personally and purposely directed the compiling of bogus intel. I asked for proof of that, and instead you just ignored my request and posted something that has nothing to do with the question/request on hand. Again, show me proof that Bush personally and purposely directed the CIA to compile bad intel, and I'll believe you. But until then, your baseless accusations hold no water.

Quote

Your reply was extremely naive

Well, I don't think you can call me naive just because I had a request that you can't fulfill, and thus avoided it all together. Making baseless accusations is naive.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

The CIA and NSA report to Congress, the Natl Sec Advisor and the president. Who they report to is not the point. What is the point is that you argue that Bush personally and purposely directed the compiling of bogus intel. I asked for proof of that, and instead you just ignored my request and posted something that has nothing to do with the question/request on hand. Again, show me proof that Bush personally and purposely directed the CIA to compile bad intel, and I'll believe you. But until then, your baseless accusations hold no water.

Quote

Your reply was extremely naive

Well, I don't think you can call me naive just because I had a request that you can't fulfill, and thus avoided it all together. Making baseless accusations is naive.

I repeat my question to you that you avoided: to whom does the director of the CIA report? Who can ask for his resignation at any time?

The evidence is overwhelming that the intel presented to Congress and the American people was slanted to support Bush's political aims. Some people just can't bring themselves to admit that they were duped into supporting an unnecessary war.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

so you know more about the chain of command than a member of the military...well isn't that rich.

You need to understand that the US is designed to be a weak federal system. We have weak branhes of govt; they only can function strongly together. The govt is split into numerous entities so that we have what is called checks and balances. The president does not control the CIA, Supreme Court, NSA, FBI, State Dept, Health Dept, etc. He can provide directives, but does not run them (i.e. make intel reports). If he did, we'd be an autocracy and not a democracy. The CIA may ultimately work for the president, but that does not mean the president rules over them with an iron fist. Now, if you think Bush told the CIA to produce bogus intel reports, then provide proof and I'll believe you, that's all I'm saying.

maybe you should search this site for my user name, i dont need to waive my experience around like a flag.. but yea i'd say i know ALOT more about the chain of command than you do, as I work with it at all levels, in every service, on a regular basis and I am well aware how it applies pressure to the lower levels to please those at the higher...

HOW you ask a question is VERY important to WHAT answers you get... the CIC asks the questions...the Intel community provides the answers to those questions...

checks and balances is a pretty outdated term the way our government works now, and has worked for the last 50 years or so..... it may have been originally designed that way, but a large number the original intents have been subverted and circumvented... perhaps a search on recent energy reports released by the administration is in order?? Seems to be SOP for this administration to publicly spin the facts to support their objectives…

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

I repeat my question to you that you avoided: to whom does the director of the CIA report? Who can ask for his resignation at any time?

Well you obviously don't read what I write. I answered this by telling you Congress, NSA and the President. That's who the Director reports to.

Quote

The evidence is overwhelming that the intel presented to Congress and the American people was slanted to support Bush's political aims.

You think it's slanted, that's fine. You originally argued that Bush was the one who compiled this intel. I ask for proof of this and for the second time you just ignore my request. You think the intel was bull, that's fine, but do not make accusations that Bush created this intel w/o having proof of such.

Now, give me the proof that BUSH MADE THIS INTEL, or stop nagging me with your little "duped" spiel. Make an argument with proof, or don't make one at all.

[ViperPilot 0]

Well sorry, I suppose a contractor would have more experience than me. Who am I to say anything about the inner workings of the military, after all, I only am a member.

The argument made earlier was that Bush compiled this intel report, or purposely directed the compiling of bad intel. I know he can ask the intel communities questions, but the point is, did he ask questions and say "give me the answers I want, even if it's a complete lie." Well this is possible, I'm not saying it's not. But I am saying, don't accuse Bush of this unless you have proof that he did so. You think it's hard for me to believe Bush did this, well you're being very hypocritical because you find it hard to believe that Bush may have just been handed bad intel which was born because of CIA screwups.

You need to learn to give a little to get a little. I will support the idea that it's possible that Bush could have directly demanded BS intel to support his theory. But you need to support the idea that the CIA could have just screwed up and gave Bush bad intel. Again, show us proof that Bush did this, and you'll have me, Ron, and everyone else on the bandwagon for impeachment. But until then, don't make baseless attacks on individuals.

[Zenister 0]

Keep looking… reading my profile is a good start…..i wasn’t always a contractor…

the reason i say i probably know more about how a chain of command actually works is i've been involved in flag level meetings and observed exactly how the commanders intent is broken down into individual orders that are cascaded down into subordinate commands and then divided into tasks and subtasks for individual elements....unless of course you believe a corp commander actually orders each individual squad to charge a particular nest....its a very enlightening experience to observe a process as an outside evaluator than as a cog in the machine...

it is VERY easy to ask questions in a manner that will produce the answers you want. It is also very easy to ignore information that doenst fit your preconceptions/ predetermined goals and emphasis that which does... all of which are signs of bad policy making and poor leadership

If Bush had not already stated his intentions toward regime change I’d be more likely to give him the benefit of doubt when he claims to have been ‘misled’. However not one, not two, not even three, but MULTIPLE sources indicate that Bush wanted Saddam removed from power BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED PRESIDENT!! and was looking for an excuse to do so...

there is this term in the Intel world called ‘correlation’... it is where one source is used to confirm or authenticate the information from another. It is part of what defines and seperates ‘information’ and ‘Intel’... ironically Bush's intention toward regime change has been expressed and illuminated by several separate sources including the mission statement for the organization that now makes up the bulk of his closest advisors (have you read it?? if not perhaps you should) while the some of “Bad Intel” used to justify the initial invasion was not only NOT correlated at all, but came from a source that was clearly of questionable veracity and motivations, and yet STILL was taken as gospel because the information provided backed the direction the administration wished to go……

All of this is public knowledge.. I’d suggest you do some back ground reading of your own if you don’t believe me… its fairly sad when publicly disclosed “Intel” clearly refutes one of the prime sources used to justify an invasion, an invasion that has already cost the lives of nearly 2000 soldiers and has also ironically PROVEN that Saddam WAS NOT the ‘eminent threat’ claimed and that the timeline Bush pressed with his "Bad Intel" was almost completely unnecessary and unjustified.

What benefit was there to invading when we did? What would we have lost by waiting? Saddam was confined and contained, had no ability to create WMD even if he wished to, sure he was paying terrorists, but he is FAR from the only one doing so...a known, contained and controlled enemy is MUCH easier to deal with...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[ViperPilot 0]

Been gone for a while...Zenister, sorry I doubted your experience with chain of command. Obviously you do know something having sat in on flag level meetings.

Quote

it is VERY easy to ask questions in a manner that will produce the answers you want.

.

True, I'll give you that. However, when Bush asked, "are there WMD's in Iraq?" or "are WMDs a viable reason for war?" It was the CIA who said yes to those questions. So, Bush wanted that answer, ok. But, it still doesn't mean that he falsified intel reports to back it up. He wanted that answer, the CIA gave it to him, he went with that answer. However, it is not his fault, even if he got the answer he wanted, that the CIA bullshitted intel reports to support that intel. It is their fault, not Bush's. That's all I'm trying to say.

Quote

MULTIPLE sources indicate that Bush wanted Saddam removed from power BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED PRESIDENT!!

Ok, so we've established Bush wanted Saddam removed. Well guess what, I WANTED Saddam removed years ago, in fact, millions of people did. He was a shitbag and half, killed his own people repeatedly, used rape armies like they were water, and on top of his sadistic rule over his people/country, he was funding weapons research, with some being conducted by "private" companies within Iraq. That was proven by the interrogation of a captured Iraqi scientists a few months into the war. He was a huge threat to his own people, and he was an indirect threat to the rest of the world because of his massive funding to WMD research, which he knew would be used by terrorists and also did it b/c of future prospects for his own use.

So, WMD's weren't found in Iraq when we went in. Well what do you expect when Saddam had 10+ years of warning to get rid of them? I'm not saying WMD's was the right reason to go to war, but saving that country from tyranny and cutting off the massive amounts of funding Saddam was giving to WMD research and procurement is a good reason. Not to mention helping the Iraqis produce a free democracy in that region of the world is extremely beneficial to the stability of the region and the overall conquering of terrorism.

Quote

What would we have lost by waiting?

Well, we would have lost many many more innocent Iraqi people to a scumbag regime. We would have lost the ability to stop even more money going to WMD research. Had we waited longer, perhaps Saddam would have finally procured WMDs and used them. He had the ability and DID fire several SCUD missiles into Israel...that was 1990. So, what did he have in 2002? Well, you may think Iraq was still sitting in the "stone age" with weapons technology, but if they could fire SCUDs at Israel back then, you can be certain that he had better capability in 2002-03. So, who knows what could have happened if we waited, who knows?

Quote

Saddam was confined and contained

He cannot be considered confined and contained when he still is slaughtering innocent people, ordering rampant rapes, and massively funding WMD research and terrorism. Yes, other people fund it, I agree. But, Saddam was a MAJOR contributor. He made others look like pocket change. So with that amount of money flowing from him, he needed to be stopped before he continued this practice and the practices mentioned above.

[Alias 0]

Quote

Some people just can't bring themselves to admit that they were duped into supporting an unnecessary war.

I can admit that I was duped.

As mentioned earlier. I also have no doubt that the Bush Admin is doing this for the over all security of this country. I strongly disdagree with the process they pursued.

And I also am a firm believer that the major issue with the "security" I mentioned is...... yep, oil. But that's another topic heh?

Carpe Diem