Training of Security Forces "Progressing"

[interesteddad]

<p>

An “intention to renew his WMD programs” “once the sanctions were removed” is the kind of cotton candy that can be spun into almost anything. BOO!!!

</p>

<p>The problem with having been misled by our government on the WMD issue is that it is difficult to have any confidence that ANY of our intelligence is accurate.</p>

<p>The total lack of even “planning document” level evidence from Iraq indicates that Saddam had no WMD programs, latent or otherwise. I don’t know what would be worse. To think that our goverment intentionally lied to us or to think that our intelligence is really that inept.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>Barrons, I’m offensive? As compared to someone who’s gotten is into a war of choice, cost over 2,000 American soldiers dead, 15,000 wounded, a minimum of 30,000 Iraqi’s killed since the end of the conflict, managed to destabilize a country so that its long term health and its long term compatibility with U.S. interests are <em>worse</em> than under a murderous thug like Saddam Hussein–a neat trick that, fueled recruiting for Islamist terrorism by a dismal sequence of events highlighted by things like Abu Gharib, destroying 3/4 of the city of Falloujah, shoot-first-say-oops-later rules of engagement, put the American military in a horrible cycle of institutional attrition, and squandered American diplomatic capital built up over half a century while diminishing respect for America in the world…you find ME offensive? GMAFB.</p>

<p>All considered, I’m positively a model of restraint.</p>

[BlackPenguin]

<p>

Actually, the 20/20 hindsight investigations have essentially proven what was feared - there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda

</p>

<p>

“…Al-Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”</p>

<p>From the 1998 Clinton administration indictment of bin Laden. Perhaps there is something in the water at the WH that causes lies … or, those who refuse to accept it are exhibiting willful ignorance.

<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/&lt;/a&gt; - See 9/11 Commission Report, Fitzgerald indictment</p>

<p>I am sorry I have to actually say this, but the idea of links between Saddam and bin Laden in 2005 is a completely undefendable position. What FF refers to by the “Clinton” indictment is rather specious as well. The indictment did not originate from the senior levels of the Justice Department nor a Clinton appointee, so I do not know how it magically became “Clinton’s.” Even worse, it seems to be refering to an early verision of the indictment that was quickly dropped; the final form did not have that charge. These seem to be little more than regurgitated talk-points that have long since been discredited.</p>

[browninfall]

<p>It must be awful being a Dem right now.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>BP, if you mean the links may be “undefendable” in the sense that when talking to a brick wall, not much will ever get absorbed, I agree. To ignore the evidence of linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda as reported by the various investigations, including the 9/11 commission who went to great lengths to “try” to set the records straight after headlines like the one that you linked to were posted, is akin to the open-mindedness exhibted by TD who still clings to the “Bush lied” mantra over the yellowcake issue even though the British still stand by their claim after having looked into it with the Butler report. Not only do the Brits stand by this claim, so do other European intelligence sources:
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/financialtimes/business/FT1087373295002.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/financialtimes/business/FT1087373295002.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein’s regime - were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.</p>

<p>But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

But, rather than accept facts, TD prefers ad hominem attacks. I’ve learned to accept nothing less from him.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>I posted a 13,000-character point by point refutations of FF’s claims, carefully annotated with citations, in an earlier thread…I remember the character count because I discovered that CC has a 5,000-character per count limit. Repeating the cycle would be merely tedious on my part.</p>

<p>Bush/Cheney repeatedly said “9/11” and “Iraq” in such close juxtapostion that a majority of Americans came to believe that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. The administration and FF continue to purvey the same recycled talking-point lies, trying to clothe the emperor that has none. Complete contempt is the mildest response this practice deserves.</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>What credence do we give to European Intelligence Officers. Are they more credible than what we had and probably still have?</p>

<p>Someone trusts someone in Niger/Nigeria? I have a Niger/Nigerian friend who wants to buy a dog, Because of currency fluctuations he will send you a money order for $5000 and you can refund the excess money to him. Can you help him out?</p>

<p>Oh, the human intelligence can not be refuted. The source recently remembered that someone from that Gulf region or was it from that other Gulf region with a dictator, wanted some pound cake for Christmas. We should congratulate this source for his recollection under duress and for his children who were recently admitted to an elite college in the US. Full ride too. His children will add valuable diversity and personal experience to the student body. </p>

<p>Because the intelligence officials, who cannot be name (Vodermort) “Believes” but cannot state for fact, there is evidence, and can’t produce it because he is a “Nigerian” agent who states that there is a secret market for processed ore that but not so secret that a white girl from America asked to see the records of the company making/shipping/processing the U-ore. That attractive girl wasn’t believed by her superiors, so sorry for her. </p>

<p>We believe what we believe. Only the thresholds are different.
Think this is worth 760 on the writing portion?</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>So let me get this right, quoting from investigative findings is “contemptible” but waving them off (without a hint of evidence) as a white-wash is, I presume, laudible? That’s an interesting value system. To each there own, I guess.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>Selective out of context quotations with the aim to produce arguments more finely spun than cotton candy.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>What could be more “in context” than the direct quote from the Butler commission stating that the 16 words by Bush in the State of the Union message were “well founded”. The entirety of the response to which from you was “white-wash”. </p>

<p>Sorry, but cutesy rhetorical quips regarding cotton candy are only allowed once per thread.</p>

[mini]

<p>At any rate, we are getting ready to cut’n’run, uh, declare victory and start withdrawing troops, so that our well-trained security forces can start shooting at each other in earnest.</p>

<p>“Mission Accomplished.” (If I were an Iraqi, I’d vote for Porky Pig if it would get the Americans to leave…)</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>Please avoid putting ideas in GW’s head. Hams-for-Peace, would surely keep us there longer.</p>

[browninfall]

<p>Hey, how come nobody’s posted any thread about the disastrous election that just took place in Iraq? Lots of folks here love commenting on Iraq. Where is everyone?</p>