NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/index.html

The evidence is piling up that the justification for the Iraq War was fabricated. It is going to be harder and harder to justify it.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.


"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

I wonder how Bush supporters will try to justify supporting a president that tricked a nation into a losing war that most nations had the sense to stay out of.

I wonder how Bush supporters will try to justify supporting a president that tricked a nation into a losing war that most nations had the sense to stay out of.
I think they'll just hit their inner 'ignore' buttons.

If only Corneliu and Masetcala could see this. :rolleyes:


Col. Wilkerson should've spoken up at the time. Now it's way too late. His country's credibility has been shot to hell.

I wonder how Bush supporters will try to justify supporting a president that tricked a nation into a losing war that most nations had the sense to stay out of.
People rarely justify beliefs in an intellectually rigorous manner. They usually pick and choose, and that's why no neo-cons will post in this thread. It does not agree with their perception of events.

Too many nations stayed out of the war for reasons as equally corrupt as those you argue the US used to justify it. Germany, France, Russia, and others opposed the war only because it would cut off the flow of oil money stolen from the Iraqi people, and that is as despicable as going in to war with falsified intelligence.

Too many nations stayed out of the war for reasons as equally corrupt as those you argue the US used to justify it. Germany, France, Russia, and others opposed the war only because it would cut off the flow of oil money stolen from the Iraqi people, and that is as despicable as going in to war with falsified intelligence.
Yep. I believe the war was unmerited, but the Europeans have no room to behave as self-righteously as they do about it.

Too many nations stayed out of the war for reasons as equally corrupt as those you argue the US used to justify it. Germany, France, Russia, and others opposed the war only because it would cut off the flow of oil money stolen from the Iraqi people, and that is as despicable as going in to war with falsified intelligence.
I'm confused as to why not waging an unnecessary war that no one other than a select few people, comprised of the aggressors, know the reason for, due to reasons of self interest, is worse than starting and waging an unnecessary war, that no one but you know's the reason for. :confused:

Yep. I believe the war was unmerited, but the Europeans have no room to behave as self-righteously as they do about it.

Oi! I'm a 17-year-old, Blair has no reason to care about my views, neither would Chirac were I French, Schroeder if I were German (and so forth). The public was firmly anti-war, our leaders were pricks, not a lot to do (especially when the main alternative is *shudder* Michael Howard).

I'm confused as to why not waging an unnecessary war that no one other than a select few people, comprised of the aggressors, know the reason for, due to reasons of self interest, is worse than starting and waging an unnecessary war, that no one but you know's the reason for. :confused:

They were profiting off of the suffering of the Iraqi people under a dictator who ruthlessly stole their wealth to line the pockets and balance sheets of wealthy European businessmen. Profit gleaned from suffering. I say neither is worse than the other, but the European governments have no moral high ground in their opposition.

And then they proceeded to oppose the war to conceal the corruption that ran deep within the UN and the businesses and governemnts tied to Oil-for-Food. The merits and justification of the war are debatable, but this is totally wrong; too many people in these countries act self-righteous over their government opposing the war when they only opposed it because their corruption would come to light if Saddam was moved.

Oi! I'm a 17-year-old, Blair has no reason to care about my views, neither would Chirac were I French, Schroeder if I were German (and so forth). The public was firmly anti-war, our leaders were pricks, not a lot to do (especially when the main alternative is *shudder* Michael Howard).
Then I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to your politicians, who are very, for the most part, arrogant and look down on the US in their speeches.

So Upitatanium , you are saying that the morally correct thing would have been to leave the people of Iraq to the 'tender mercies' of a man and his sons that routinely tortured, raped, and murdered them? A man that ordered entire villages to be killed with poison gas?

That IS your message when you say that the war is unjustified.

Oh, and by the way, who the hell ever said that we lost the war?!? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. If we had lost the war, your buddy Saddam would still be in power.

This doesn't matter, you see. What's done is done, you see. Crimes aren't crimes if they've already been tried and failed. They can't be tried again - double jeopardy! Similarly, people see the decision to go to war as (thankfully) irrelevant. The new tag line is, "Now we have to stay until the job is done." Even the anti-war crowd likes to use that one now. People may have been against the invasion, but few have problems with the occupation. Oh and insert some nonsense about WMDs and terrorism there too. WMDs and terrorism! You must acquit!

That IS your message when you say that the war is unjustified.

That is not what he said...

The evidence is piling up that the justification for the Iraq War was fabricated.

That definite article makes all the difference.

They were profiting off of the suffering of the Iraqi people under a dictator who ruthlessly stole their wealth to line the pockets and balance sheets of wealthy European businessmen. Profit gleaned from suffering. I say neither is worse than the other, but the European governments have no moral high ground in their opposition.
Fraudsters glean profit by creating suffering. This is corrupt and it is a very bad thing to do, regardless whether or not something else is bad. However, without detracting from the wrongness of fraud, fraud is still not as bad as banging lots of people of the head, killing any number of them and wounding many, for reasons known to no one.

And then they proceeded to oppose the war to conceal the corruption that ran deep within the UN and the businesses and governemnts tied to Oil-for-Food. The merits and justification of the war are debatable, but this is totally wrong; too many people in these countries act self-righteous over their government opposing the war when they only opposed it because their corruption would come to light if Saddam was moved.
I wouldnt call it reason to be self righteous, but objecting to the war and being self righteous about one's government are not the same thing. The fact is no matter what other nations governments were or were not doing, this doesnt make the war any more right or any less wrong. Opposing something that is bad and wrong for the wrong reasons is not as bad as doing what is bad or wrong.

If only Corneliu and Masetcala could see this. :rolleyes:


Col. Wilkerson should've spoken up at the time. Now it's way too late. His country's credibility has been shot to hell.
TG'ing them comes to mind ... but i think that's against the rules.... :(

Someone could *CASUALLY* slip it into some other conversation with them somewhere ... their topics of interest tend to hover similarly .....
:fluffle:

Too many nations stayed out of the war for reasons as equally corrupt as those you argue the US used to justify it. Germany, France, Russia, and others opposed the war only because it would cut off the flow of oil money stolen from the Iraqi people, and that is as despicable as going in to war with falsified intelligence.
I strongly believe that you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about!

Germany stayed out of the war because it is against our constitution to wage war just because we think we like to. (And for good reasons if I might call upon your probably wacky knowledge of history!).

The U.S. wanted the world to believe that Iraq had WMD (which they had NOT) and that it was just to invade just for that reason (yeah right, oil didn't have anything to do with it!).

Then it was about spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East (which is workin out really fine if you look at every day's news).

Germany stayed out of the war because it was started for the wrong reasons, with the wrong intentions and wouldn't have gotten any support from the German populace - but instead of being thankful that apparently Germany has learned its lesson from WW1 and WW2 and instead of honoring and appreciating Germany's efforts under NATO and U.N. supervision elsewhere in the world (couple of places in the Balkans & Afghanistan) you keep asking for more troop presence and participation?

Wake up!

The war in Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes the U.S. government has made in the last century!

As for losing that war - militarily, you crushed the Iraqis.

As for achieving your goals - even a blind man with a stick can see that its not working as intended. Talk about a welcome with flowers!

Germany has had good reasons to stay out of this mess for good, as did many other nations that reside on this planet - apparently the U.S. government thought differently and the U.S. populace is paying the price every single day.

The way you just throw generalizations out here is really terrible and I wouldn't even have acknowledged it if it didn't concern the Fatherland!

Next time you make claims like that - make sure you can back it up with something more trustful than what your government tells you...

If we had lost the war, your buddy Saddam would still be in power.
Yeah, while we're throwing THAT jilipolladas around, how about YOUR BUDDIES THE JANJAWEED and oh maybe, just 'cuz it comes to mind .... those folks that Reagan and North were so kind to exchange weapons for hostages for while publicly saying "We will not tolerate attacks from outlaw states" and "We will not cave in" and "They counted on America to be passive ... they counted wrong."?
YOUR buddies the janjaweed.
If the fu sh*ts ....

TG'ing them comes to mind ... but i think that's against the rules.... :(

Someone could *CASUALLY* slip it into some other conversation with them somewhere ... their topics of interest tend to hover similarly .....
:fluffle:
LOLOLOL

Believe me I've tried. Mesatecala gave me the smiley with the extended middle finger and got a slap on the wrist from the mods. That's just sad... He completely lost his cool and started placing everyone on his ignore list. He is a poster child of the PNAC.

I strongly believe ...

Yay! for German Nightmare.

LOLOLOL

Believe me I've tried. Mesatecala gave me the smiley with the extended middle finger and got a slap on the wrist from the mods. That's just sad... He completely lost his cool and started placing everyone on his ignore list. He is a poster child of the PNAC.
Does he even know what the PNAC is?
Yeah, kinda feel sorry for him. I'm not really sure what he wants from this forum.

Yep. I believe the war was unmerited, but the Europeans have no room to behave as self-righteously as they do about it.
Agreed. If anything, it's more greedy. :( It doesn't change the fact, though, that the war was unjustified.

If we had lost the war, your buddy Saddam would still be in power.

He's not my buddy.


No friend of Reagon is a friend of mine.

LOLOLOL

Believe me I've tried. Mesatecala gave me the smiley with the extended middle finger and got a slap on the wrist from the mods. That's just sad... He completely lost his cool and started placing everyone on his ignore list. He is a poster child of the PNAC.

Probably a Log Cabin Republican on top of that as well, which would by technicality would mean he's masochistic or self-loathing.

He's not my buddy.


No friend of Reagon is a friend of mine.

Saddam was the Republican Party's buddy, coup, purge, torture and murder notwithstanding until he made the mistake of believing America wouldn't butt into the whole Kuwait deal.

I'm confused as to why not waging an unnecessary war that no one other than a select few people, comprised of the aggressors, know the reason for, due to reasons of self interest, is worse than starting and waging an unnecessary war, that no one but you know's the reason for. :confused:
Yeah--me too.

I'm also, frankly, a bit tired of all these so-called moderates in the Republican who either didn't do anything to stop this mess from starting when they had the chance (Powell) or now that we're in the mess, talk like they oppose Bush and yet do nothing about it (McCain, Hagel, Graham, etc.). It's time for those people to put up or shut up.

He's not my buddy.


No friend of Reagon is a friend of mine.
Hear, hear!