Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 1
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!Page 1 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Even though President Obama (with head firmly buried in the sand) refuses to recognize their proper name and therefore their evil reach, ISIS still had a very good week this week of May 17 2015.
Huge territorial gains and the capture of Palmyra and Ramadi.
Clearly the Obama strategy (whatever it is) is not working.

Back in November 2014 President Obama said the following; “There are always circumstances in which the United States might need to deploy U.S. ground troops,” “If we discover that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman [Martin] Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it.”

A line in the sand...

The ISIS propaganda magazine Dabiq reports that ISIS could buy its first nuclear weapon within 12 months.
History has proven that ISIS and Al Qaeda have pretty much done what they said they were going to do. They have also said they want to attack on American soil.

So what should President Obama do? Stay with the current plan and wait for the line in the sand to be crossed or admit failure and change the plan?
 Orione7
Joined: 12/22/2014
Msg: 2
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:07:18 AM
Get your puppet masters Israel to do something for once.
They have been strangely quiet.
 HFX_RGB2
Joined: 4/14/2015
Msg: 3
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:40:43 AM

So what should President Obama do?


Run a bunch of fake and planted stories in the news and also make sure the staff is on point with the message and do the round of Sunday news shows.
Make sure his private wealth is well invested in the private contractors that stand to profit the most.

Then drag the country into another illegal war based on derp.

It worked for Bush, and just look at have well that all turned out.



Or he could do the sensible thing and let the middle east deal with the middle east and stop doing stuff that creates things like isis.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 4
view profile
History
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:57:39 AM

They have also said they want to attack on American soil.
Well then ... now you really do have a good reason to sign up to fight those damned Muslims ... right?

Be sure and call them all kinds of demeaning names while you're at it ... and be sure to make fun of their religious beliefs as well. Peddle bibles to them and threaten them that they will go straight to Hell if they don't convert!


... ISIS could buy its first nuclear weapon within 12 months.
Tell Israel ... they'll get 'em. They'll get the Zionists and IDF after them!


So what should President Obama do?
1. Tell Congress to write a letter to Iran.

2. Get BN over here to speak to the Congress. That way we'll ...

3. Send them a whole bunch more money so they can kill more Palestinians. Then ...

4. The Zionists can hurl dead Palestinians at ISIS while telling them that's what they'll do to them if they don't quit starting so much shyte!

OP ...
I think you started this thread to be sarcastic ... so don't freak out if you get a bunch of sarcastic answers.
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 5
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 1:30:04 PM
No sarcasm here but it is interesting to see the same old attacks and insults.
The anti semitism and useless bile.
No solutions, no discussion of facts.
Just mis-representation of fact and statement.
Perhaps there is no hope.
But hope springs eternal and elections bring the possibility new solutions.

In the meantime however will ISIS acquire a nuke?
 import_from_uk
Joined: 5/12/2015
Msg: 6
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 1:43:18 PM

So what should President Obama do?


He should remind himself that he is the President of America, not the whole world.
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 7
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 2:08:22 PM

So what should President Obama do?

Whatever he thinks he should do... It doesn't so much matter what it is... because the stupid fvcks will just b!tch and find fault... without ever offering any alternatives... no matter what he does... just like the op...

That's why they just ask questions... without offering any solutions... just like the op has done... If they offer their solutions... he just might do it... and then they won't be able to blame him... even if it goes south...

The only thing he could do that would satisfy the right-wing... would be for him to turn white and start whining like a Teabagger... and even then... they would probably be pointing and shouting "rino!!!"
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 8
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 2:40:22 PM
Once upon a time, the richest terrorist and America hater spent ten years planning an attack on the US. What did he get? 19 boys with box cutters. From his point of view it turned out rather well--the ruling elite of said country engaged, managed to kill almost another 5,000 of its own young, spent itself nearly into bankruptcy, and has exhibited mass hysteria ever since.

I am encouraged that for once we have a leader who doesn't feel he needs to engage on the playing field defined by people who don't like us (or each other).
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 2:47:24 PM
@ wooby ...+++ ...

Message 5 ...
In the meantime however will ISIS acquire a nuke?
I wasn't kidding in Message 4 when I said just to tell Israel.

And FYI ... I wasn't being anti-semitic when I said it. Anti-semitic is "anti-jew" and telling Israel if they get a nuke is not being anti-jew ... it just means that Israel will take care of it ... they'll get 'em. They really will get the Zionists and the IDF after them!

I think you're being a bit touchy! Quit acting like you grew up under some rock somewhere.

Perhaps there is no hope.
No, no, no ... you can sign up to fight ISIS (or ISIL) and get all your buddies to sign up with you. Now that there are no boots on the ground, the most that could happen is that your drone gets shot down ... eh?

On the other hand, if you qualify for a Seal team ... you might get shot at ... but you still wouldn't be required to train any "Muslims" so no chance to get to call them demeaning names and make fun of them ... and no chance to hand out the bibles.


But hope springs eternal and elections bring the possibility new solutions.
Who knows ... we may get another war monger and then anything is possible ... perhaps even another "illegal" war ... eh?
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 10
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 3:21:29 PM
Interesting how attempts are made to paint this as a war against muslims.
Yet there are many other countries in which Muslims exist and no western attacks are made on those countries.
Illegal war... you've been stating that on here for years and yet no one buys it. Was it a mistake to go into Afghanistan... no.
Was it a mistake to go into Iraq in hindsight yes. But it was not based on a lie as Bob Woodward learned in his extensive research. In fact Woodward goes on to state that it was Bush who cautioned George Tenet (CIA head) not to exagerate WMD facts.
So illegal war - you can stop that rant.
It was equally a mistake to pull out completely from Iraq. History shows both mistakes.

The facts are that Syria and Iraq of the latter 20th century are gone.
The Kurds would never return to a unified Iraq and the Sunni and Shia can never exist together.

No this is not a war against Muslims.

“We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “Religion is not responsible for violence and terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism.” President Obama
 HFX_RGB2
Joined: 4/14/2015
Msg: 11
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 3:53:29 PM

But it was not based on a lie as Bob Woodward learned in his extensive research. In fact Woodward goes on to state that it was Bush who cautioned George Tenet (CIA head) not to exagerate WMD facts.


It went more like:

New York Times published a story titled "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts".

Bush administration goes full court press on every news channel talking about this story, which they planted.

People buy it hook line and sinker (for those that didn't they where label antiamerican commie bast*rds)
Then the USA economy is in the toilet, a surplus became a deficit and everyone is mad because there is a black guy in the Whitehouse.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 12
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 4:29:21 PM
So illegal war - you can stop that rant.



On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.

The show played a clip of Cheney saying, “We know [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

“Was that true or not,” host Chris Matthews asked.

“We were saying–”

“Can you answer that question? Was that true?”

“No, that was not true,” he finally said.


http://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/george_w_bushs_cia_briefer_admits_iraq_wmd_intelligence_was_a_lie/
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 13
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 4:38:48 PM
at OP


In the meantime however will ISIS acquire a nuke?


Well let me say this!
When the Gump made his famous "axis of evil" speech
he named 3 countries:

1. Iran
2. Iraq
3. N Korea

-Since that speech, Iran has proceeded forward towards becoming a nuclear nation
-N Korea has already developed it
-and in present day Iraq, ISIS is supposedly striving to get a nuke

You see, if the Gumpster was 1/2 as astute as his father, and kept his mouth SHUT
none of this would be a problem now!!!
But according to the Neocons, its all the black ( I'm sure that they are using other names other than "black ") guy's fault.
 aj7125
Joined: 11/28/2014
Msg: 14
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 6:25:19 PM
"Interesting how attempts are made to paint this as a war against muslims."

^^^^^^^ No, only against Islamic Terrorists but hey, these are the same posters that use the black card all the time and the poster who call blacks that disagree with them as "Uncle Toms". They are consistent
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 15
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/24/2015 6:46:57 PM
It may seem like sacrilege to mention during Memorial Day weekend to mention the obvious, but the first time American troops went thru these cities, they didn't do well. what helped a whole lot was winning the hearts and minds of Sunnis inside these cities in order to get actual operable intel, AND support. a Few thousand GI's in the desert wouldn't have stood up to ISIS while the Iraqi soldiers followed the lead of their officers.

that alliance is gone now. we did to the Sunni what everyone does to the Kurds--abandon them to the ruling government. why should the Sunni help anyone get rid of the one thing that stands up to the ruling Shia? we keep forgetting, people in the world don't always have the same agenda as the US.

ISIS isn't Nazi Germany--in other words, its not creating state of the art tanks and jet planes. Its propaganda magazine says it could buy its first nuke? Of course they say that! why wouldn't they make that claim? it gets them more recruits, doesn't it? sounds like they're going somewhere. Heck, Saddam told his own military he had nukes, to keep them from going AWOL en masse like they tried in 1991. and Iran's been 6 months away from a working nuke for the last two decades now. No doubt, a year from now someone will resurrect this post and the Iranians will continue to be 6 months away.

the closest to a WMD ISIS's former leader ever came to was that chemical plant inside the NoFlyZone we defended. and biochemical weapons have a poor work rate, Aum Shinryko took about 10 tries on the Toyko subway to get sarin to work. Shia Iran isn't going to sell a nuke to Sunnis, North Korea and Pakistan are too far away to move something that hot a satellite can pick it up, maybe it'll be the Russians. The Israelis already have a history of bombing nuke labs in the ME, like Osirik in Iraq. That's why you call them to do the cleanup work. But ISIS doesn't need a nuke. its got ideology and the web to spread cells around to do small acts of terrorism that the press can blow up into something big and scary. you've likely got a better chance of dying in a car accident than from terrorism here.

what's Obama going to do? well, let's see, he has to put it thru Congress...which is in election year, and would really LOVE the Democrats to solve the ISIS problem and show leadership. OR we could give a bunch of weapons to the anti ISIS on the ground. and that's um....

oh wait, I know. Assad. Iran. and whatever part of the Iraqi Army that hasn't died yet. well, maybe there is some other Sunni group that isn't Wahabbist. The Saudis will be sure to help us find who that is. and maybe they can find their ass with their hands tied behind their backs. or maybe we could immigrate AQAP into there. maybe put up some posters in Yemen, see if they want to travel this time of year. ironically, what's going on in the ME is a war on Muslims--by other Muslims. if this genocide was in Africa and wasn't conducted over an oil field, we'd just mention it in section C of the newspaper.

what's the solution to ISIS? take 'em out just like the Soviets--cut the price of oil and let them try to run a country on IOU's.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 16
view profile
History
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/25/2015 7:36:13 AM
Message 10 ...
Illegal war... you've been stating that on here for years and yet no one buys it.
None of your ilk will admit ... but most of us know it was an "illegal" war ... no doubt about it.

Was it a mistake to go into Afghanistan... no.
Yes it was a mistake. We were supposed to be going after OBL ... and a Seal team got him. We did not need to send troops in there to get him ... kill, maim, and mutilate all kinds of innocent civilians or precious American troops.

OBL targeted us for our support of Israel. That's nothing new. There was no reason for an invasion of Afghanistan.

It was equally a mistake to pull out completely from Iraq.
I'm trying to remember who might have originally negotiated the "pull-out" from Iraq. I wonder if the OP remembers? Was it President Obama?

Let's put on our thinking caps and see what we can come up with!

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/15/republicans-blame-obama-iraq-bush-signed-agreement-leave.html
Republicans Blame Obama For Iraq When It Was Bush Who Signed The Agreement to Leave

It is too bad Republicans lack any semblance of a memory dating back to before America invaded and conquered Iraq because the Bush administration saw an opportunity to enrich D1ck Cheney’s company and kill Muslims. If they did, they would see a relatively stable region where Iran was not the dominant force in the area, radical Muslims were not attempting to overthrow Syria, Iraqi Sunni and Shia Muslims lived in peace in the same neighborhoods, and the idea of an Iraqi civil war was remote. However, Republicans can hardly remember what they lied about yesterday much less what Bush did thirteen years ago, so it is typical that they find no issue blaming the current situation in Iraq on President Obama.
Nope ... no information there. Just an explanation for the real reason to start the "illegal" war.

What any of the Republicans blaming Obama for pulling American troops out of Iraq in 2011 should remember, is that in October 2008 George W. Bush was president when the Status of Forces Agreement was drafted and ratified by Iraqi lawmakers a month later in November 2008. The pertinent part of the agreement that President Obama honored was that, “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” Still, Republicans are assailing the President for abandoning Iraq they were fully prepared to continue occupying in perpetuity, and forget that besides Bush, an ill-advised strategy by former Republican man-god General David Patraeus mishandling of the so-called “surge” that created the militant insurgency threatening to completely tear Iraq apart and finish completely destabilizing the region Bush’s invasion started eleven years ago.
Hmmm ... only the 2nd paragraph of the article and there it is ... big as life. "October 2008 George W. Bush was president when the Status of Forces Agreement was drafted and ratified by Iraqi lawmakers a month later in November 2008."

Imagine the outrage if President Obama refused to honor negotiated agreements a previous president had made. Anyone want to guess who would have been screaming the loudest?

The sectarian war raging in Iraq today is the result of America’s allegedly successful effort to contain sectarian violence in Iraq through the so-called “surge” that is the reason for what is becoming a devastating and uncontrollable civil war in Iraq. It is important to remember that part and parcel of General David Patraeus’ strategy in the “surge” was arming and paying Iraqi Sunnis to assist Americans on the one hand, and the other allowing Iraqi Shias to cleanse entire neighborhoods of Sunnis who are now waging an insurgent war against government forces. Some of the arms the insurgency is using are holdover “gifts” Patraeus showered on them that were used in Syria and now Iraq. There is a reason Iran supports Iraq’s government forces and called on Shias to fight with Iraq’s national army and put down former Iraqi Sunnis who were attacked viciously by the majority Iraqi Shias during the American occupation. It is true that some of the blame clearly falls on Iraqi leader Maliki for religious sectarianism targeting Sunnis since before the insurgency began in earnest, and now the entire nation is paying a heavy price.

Iraqi leader Maliki, a Shia Muslim, has been heavily criticized for pursuing security policies that alienated ordinary Sunnis, such as sweeps that rounded up hundreds of men, innocent and guilty alike, and the arrest of the wives of suspected militants. According to a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and now a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, James Jeffrey said, “they (Maliki’s army) had lost the support of the people because they had a sectarian policy, and I saw it with my own eyes.” No doubt many of the militants are driven by revenge and retribution for being driven out of their homes and massacred by the government under majority Shia control with assistance from Americans who failed to protect minority Sunnis on orders from Patraeus.
Oh dear ... it appears too that their "puppet guy" played a big role in creating the current problem.

Then we also have Americans actually assisting in that process. (This is where Americans are supposed to muster up some morals and question what they are doing. Question if it's right.)

What is happening in Iraq is a continuation of the sectarian religious war, or civil war if it pleases, that began after America invaded and upset the balance that Saddam Hussein presided over. It is true Saddam was a tyrant, but there was relative calm and cooperation between minority Sunnis and Bathists in control of the government and the majority Shia population. After America overthrew Saddam’s government and installed a Shia majority, not only did predominately Shia Iran rise to power, Iraqi Shias embarked on a crusade to eradicate Sunnis and exact retribution against ordinary Sunnis. Now the shoe is on the other foot and seeing the gravity of the situation, Iraq’s Shiite religious authorities issued statements in support of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army. The top Shiite spiritual leader in the world, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani gave his support to “the sons within the Iraqi security forces,” and a representative for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, urged Shiites to join the security forces to combat Sunni militants.

For their part, the militants are not out to massacre Iraqis and took care to warn off citizens from the danger of impending battles. Residents said when militants entered populated areas, “They greeted us, and when they saw that we were scared they said, ‘We are not here to fight you. Just stay away and do not interfere. We are here to fight Maliki’s army, not you.'”
Whatever is happening, or will happen, in Iraq is a direct and irrefutable result of America’s invasion and poorly administered war of occupation. None of the blame rests with the troops sent to fight and die in a completely unnecessary war of American aggression, any more than it is Barack Obama’s fault for honoring the agreement George W. Bush brokered in 2008 to withdraw American forces by December 2011.
Hmmm ... there it is again ... "honoring the agreement George W. Bush brokered in 2008." Almost makes you wonder if he perhaps did that in an effort to set up the incoming president ... set him up to fail

Saddam Hussein may have been a tyrant, but while he was in power Sunnis and Shias were not involved in a sectarian religious war, Iran was not a regional power, and Syria was not threatened by Islamic extremists and civil war. Republicans learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq War debacle except that it was not white guy George W. Bush’s fault and like everything else they screwed up during their eight year reign of terror, they blame the African American man in the White House.



No this is not a war against Muslims.
Then they need to stop training our military to hate the Muslims and and stop teaching them to make fun of the Muslims and their religious beliefs.

OP ...
It most certainly WAS an illegal war and it's NOT President Obama's fault that we withdrew when we did.

No amount of pointing that out to you will change your mind ... and none of us hold any hope that you will ever wise up. It's fun though, that you keep writing it and giving us a chance to debunk your ignorant remarks.
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 17
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/25/2015 10:21:15 AM

Bush administration goes full court press on every news channel talking about this story, which they planted.


So here is Bob Woodward's statement from yesterday regarding the lie about the Bush lie. For those who don't know who Bob Woodward is he is no right winger. But an objective reporter he is...

"You can make a persuasive argument there was a mistake. But there is a kinda line going on that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. Lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD. He was the one who was skeptical. If you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, ‘Hey, look, it will only take a week or two.’ Early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months, so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lie in this that I could find…
… Look, Obama does not like war. But, if you look back on this the argument from military was keep ten-fifteen thousand troops there as an insurance policy. And we all know insurance policies make sense. We have thirty thousand troops or more in South Korea sixty-five years after the war. When you’re a super power you have to buy these insurance policies and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision but clearly a factor."

The start of the Iraq war was a mistake but the withdrawal without leaving 15,000 troops in place was equally a mistake and directly led to the mess we have now.


^^^^^^ No, only against Islamic Terrorists but hey, these are the same posters that use the black card all the time and the poster who call blacks that disagree with them as "Uncle Toms". They are consistent.


So true and Kirsten Powers, LIBERAL pundit has written a book on this very subject...
“Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia, and, as we’ve seen, even violence. If you criticize the lack of due process for male college students accused of rape, you are a “rape apologist.” End of conversation. After all, who wants to listen to a rape lover? People who are anti–abortion rights don’t care about the unborn; they are misogynists who want to control women. Those who oppose same-sex marriage don’t have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” it wasn’t due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a “War on Women.”
― Kirsten Powers, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech


Message 10 ...
Illegal war... you've been stating that on here for years and yet no one buys it.
None of your ilk will admit ... but most of us know it was an "illegal" war ... no doubt about it.
Was it a mistake to go into Afghanistan... no.
Yes it was a mistake. We were supposed to be going after OBL ... and a Seal team got him. We did not need to send troops in there to get him ... kill, maim, and mutilate all kinds of innocent civilians or precious American troops.

The Afghanistan war started in 2001 and Bin Laden was killed 10 years later in 2011 as a result of going into Alfghanistan. So not really sure your point.


OBL targeted us for our support of Israel. That's nothing new. There was no reason for an invasion of Afghanistan.
No not only because of western support of Israel any military involvement in iIslamic countries ticked him off as well.


It was equally a mistake to pull out completely from Iraq.
I'm trying to remember who might have originally negotiated the "pull-out" from Iraq. I wonder if the OP remembers? Was it President Obama?

Now you know it wasn't simply the pull out but rather the failure to leave 10 to 15 thousand residual troops there as most advisors recomended.
"It was clear to me--and many others--that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together,"...
"My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we'd seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq's stability was not only in Iraq's interest but also in ours, "I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq's military."...
"Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he said.

It's not only the right saying these things.
Let's put on our thinking caps and see what we can come up with!

Do I need to explain to you who Leon Panetta is or his role in that period of time?
But hey keep on posting the emoticons they are very telling.
 HFX_RGB2
Joined: 4/14/2015
Msg: 18
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/25/2015 10:44:34 AM

So here is Bob Woodward's statement from yesterday regarding the lie about the Bush lie. For those who don't know who Bob Woodward is he is no right winger. But an objective reporter he is...


Well actually he is an associate editor of the Post, not a reporter, but hey lets not let factual statement get in your way.


"I think I dropped the ball here. I should have pushed much, much harder on the skepticism about the reality of WMD; in other words, [I should have] said, 'Hey, look, the evidence is not as strong as they were claiming.'"

Bod Woodward
February 21, 2007

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/interviews/woodward.html
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 19
ah danny boy, the facts, the facts, the facts are calling
Posted: 5/25/2015 10:49:08 AM
ah, Woodward, we hardly knew ye. He takes down Nixon, and instead of being lauded for doing his job, he gets labeled a liberal. He's sure been bought out since. that's how you subvert those yellow dogs barking at the rich man's table, you let them taste the crumbs. if we really want to see what a liberal says, let's try Seymour Hersh. or Greg Palast. Or we could spend time going back into history. The Downing Street Memo, perhaps...what got said about that, in terms of what it did for getting us into Iraq?

well, at the risk of making this a wall of text, the first thing I found at downingstreetmemo.com:

"Arguments against the DSMs... debunked

What?But we went to the UN

President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and their supporters frequently point to the timing of the DSM and other leaked documents and say, "but we went to the UN after that, which proves we wanted a peaceful solution."

First, we should note that for Blair, going to the UN was an imperative. As a party to the International Criminal Court, the UK needed a legal justification for invasion, and regime change was not adequate, as is indicated by several of the leaked UK documents. However, both Blair and Bush needed the imprimatur of a UN resolution to build public support.

As Peter Ricketts' memo to Jack Straw on March 22, 2002 states, the UN strategy was twofold: "either Saddam against all the odds allows Inspectors to operate freely, in which case we can further hobble his WMD programmes, or he blocks/hinders, and we are on stronger ground for switching to other methods." But the plan backfired--Saddam did let the inspectors back in, but after visiting over 100 sites multiple times they found no WMD. They did find some conventional missiles that exceeded set restrictions on range--still no threat to the US or UK--and they were promptly destroyed.

With the basis for war evaporating with each passing day, Bush went back to the UN to try for a second resolution that would have declared Iraq in "material breach" of resolution 1441, thus rubber stamping his invasion plan. When it became clear he didn't have the votes, Bush ordered inspectors and other foreigners out of the country and invaded anyway.\

The exercise at the UN was a sham. From the beginning, it was seen by the US and UK as a means to justfiy war, not prevent it. The DSM clearly indicates the policy of invasion was set long before the US went to the UN (and before Bush sought approval from Congress for the use of force against Iraq). The other leaked UK memos show a British Cabinet scrambling to find a legal basis for a war their Prime Minister had already committed them to. When the UN ceased to offer any further benefit to the war agenda, the US and UK moved on--to Baghdad.

What?Congress had access to the same intel as Bush and they approved the invasion

On October 10, 2002, Congress voted to approve the use of force against Iraq. The President has indicated on several occasions that members of Congress had access to the same intelligence his administration had, and made their choice on the basis of this information. What is less known is the fact that what Congress was given bore little resemblance to the detailed reports the Bush administration was reading.

Senator Bob Graham, in his book, recounts a Sept 5, 2002 meeting he and Senators Durbin and Levin had with then CIA director George Tenet and his staff. Though the administration had long before decided on invasion, to the senators' amazement no National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq had yet been produced. Graham, Durbin and Levin demanded to see one, and three weeks later Tenet produced a 90-page document rife with caveats and qualifications (though these were buried in footnotes) about what we knew--or didn't know--about WMD in Iraq.

That report was classified, and as such was available only to those on the House and Senate intelligence committees. Graham pressed for it to be declassified, and got what he asked for on Oct 4--less than a week before Congress was to vote on the use of force. However, this declassified version was more like a marketing brochure: 20 pages in length, slickly produced with splashy grahics and maps, and with none of the caveats contained in the original. Graham described it later as "a vivid and terrifying case for war."

This 20-page, unqualified summary was presented to our senators and representatives as the best information on Iraq's WMDs, and it was provided to them one week before the vote on the use of force. The intelligence material Congress had was what the administration was willing to give them, namely a promotional piece whose lies of omission outweighed what was included.

What?The issue of why we went to war is moot

We can all agree that a stable Iraq is the most desirable outcome, but this is a separate issue from the question of why we went to war and how the case for war was made.

There is ample evidence—in the DSM and elsewhere—that the administration misrepresented the nature and extent of the threat posed by Saddam’s Iraq, that the case for war was built on this misrepresentation, and as a consequence many tens of thousands of people (Americans, Iraqis and others) have lost their lives. Every time someone is killed or injured as a result of the ongoing violence in Iraq, it becomes more—not less—important that we understand why and how we went to war. We were misled, and the people who misled us must be held accountable for their deception.

Information that is now publicly available, such as the DSM, makes it at least possible that a crime may have been committed by the Bush administration. To say that the issue of why we invaded Iraq is irrelevant because it’s in the past is akin to saying that the specifics of Watergate became irrelevant when Richard Nixon resigned.

What?The information in the DSM is not “news”

Much of the information contained in the DSM has been reported elsewhere, so in that sense it is perhaps not a “smoking gun” in itself. This, however, does not diminish the importance of what the memo reveals. When viewed in context—as we have attempted to do with DowningStreetMemo.com—the DSM and other leaked documents paint a damning portrait of an administration artificially pumping up its case for war while at the same time disingenuously asserting its desire to avoid it. The DSM is also highly credible, as it is the official record of the Prime Minister's meeting and not the more easily dismissed recollection of a former White House official.

What makes the DSM so vital from a news perspective is:
• The source – short of a similar document on the US side, there isn’t a much
more credible source than the British Prime Minister and his senior staff.
•The timing – the fact that the meeting in question took place in July 2002
illustrates just how early on Bush had made up his mind to “remove Saddam,
through military action, justified by the conjunction of WMD and terrorism.”
•The “nutshell” – in a few sentences, the memo summarizes all of the key
components of Bush’s deception: that Iraq posed an imminent threat to
the United States, that the US was willing to work with the UN on a diplomatic
solution, that war was a last resort, but if undertaken that the legal basis for it
was sound, and that the aftermath of an invasion, if necessary, would
be managed responsibly.

In the wake of belated media coverage of the DSM, mainstream media outlets balked at the suggestion that they missed the story. Editorial pages were filled with claims that "everyone knew" the administration had made up its mind to go to war, even in the summer of 2002. If that was the case, one has to ask why no reporter ever challenged the President on the many occasions between July 2002 and the start of the invasion when he claimed not to have come to a decision on war.

The US media was at least uncritical and at worst overtly supportive of the invasion; to claim differently now is disingenuous.

What?Americans knew the case for war was thin from the outset, but supported the invasion anyway, and confirmed this by reelecting Bush in 2004.

Let us assume for the moment that Americans had the benefit of a truly fair and balanced news media from which to gather information and form an opinion on the necessity of war. The DSM makes it clear that there were some things that the public did not know and could not have known (e.g., the National Security Council’s unwillingness to work with the UN). There were other things too that were presented by the administration in such a distorted way as to render them useless to even the most engaged American citizen in forming an opinion on the necessity of war.

The non-existent connection between Saddam and al Qaida, for example, was cited so many times by the administration that at the height of prewar hysteria, well over half of Americans polled believed Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks when in fact Iraq had nothing to do with them. Similarly, claims about Iraq’s WMD capability featured regular invocations of “mushroom clouds” when there was in fact no evidence on which to base such claims--particularly in the area of nuclear weapons.

What we now know is that the conflation of Saddam, WMD and terrorism was in essence a marketing strategy, a preconceived justification for a preconceived war. As early as July of 2002, the President and his administration had not only decided to invade Iraq in order to depose Saddam, they had also determined how to enlist the support of the American people by playing on their worst fears.

Bush’s reelection came well before the release of the DSM, so it is impossible to know what impact it might have had on what was a very close election.

What?The DSM doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.

For those of us who saw through the Bush administration’s house of cards before the invasion, the DSM doesn’t really offer anything we “didn’t already know.” However, its provenance and its comprehensive yet straightforward representation of the administration’s Iraq policy present the facts in a much more compelling light. It also represents hard evidence of the administration’s willful misrepresentation of its own policies.

The DSM’s importance lies not so much in what it says but who said it. This is not “sour grapes” coming from ousted White House officials with a bone to pick—it is the official record of a meeting held by America's staunchest ally. The DSM may not tell us anything really new, but it does offer hard evidence that the Bush administration misled the country into war.

An excellent piece on this very subject can be found here: "Some questions for media dismissing Downing Street Memo as old news."

What?The DSM is just one aide’s impressions of what was said in a meeting, so we don’t know what the players actually said or thought.

This argument seeks to discredit the document’s accuracy by suggesting that it represents one person’s—presumably erroneous—impression of the meeting. This is simple wrong. The DSM is the minutes of a meeting, and they were circulated after the meeting to all who took part. If one of the participants was misquoted, he would have had ample opportunity to correct the error.

However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, no one from President Bush to Tony Blair and all the members of their respective senior staffs has ever denied the authenticity of the memo, and the only critiques offered of its accuracy have been vague denials about the President's and PM's intentions. Those denials were offered up only after the DSM became the subject of media attention. No one has ever offered any reasonable explanation as to why the document would be so far off from what Blair and Bush claim was their position at the time.

What?The issue of manipulation of intelligence has already been settled.

This is, quite simply, false. The President’s commission on intelligence did not address the issue because it was not authorized to do so under its charter. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was originally going to investigate how intelligence was used but, under White House pressure, scaled back its inquiry to deal only with “intelligence failures” in terms of how the information was collected, not how it was used as a basis for war.

What the DSM clearly states is that the head of British Intelligence believed that the Bush Administration was using certain pieces of intelligence to support a course of action rather than determining a course of action based on the totality of intelligence. So far, no investigation into how intelligence was used has been undertaken.

What?Many other nations, France included, believed Saddam had WMD, so this was not a justification cooked up by the US/UK.

While it’s true that many governments suspected Saddam had WMD, there was no agreement as to what his actual capabilities were, or on what to do about it. Further, simply believing something to be true does not make it so, and certainly does not form a basis for war.

The administration never had a “smoking gun” to prove Saddam had WMD, and in fact the intelligence supporting the administration’s view was alarmingly thin. As we now know from various reports, US intelligence affirming WMD frequently came from paid informants who, in some cases, were later proven to be fabricators. There was virtually no intelligence coming out of Iraq itself—the country was impenetrable, leaving the US and others with little in the way of credible sources.

It is also worth noting that while there was a range of opinion (and widespread error) as to Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons capability, there certainly was not a consensus. The issue of nuclear weapons is a different story. Here, the US and UK stood nearly alone in their dire assessment. It was also on this issue that the administration demonstrated its willingness to use highly dubious intelligence reports by claiming that Iraq had sought nuclear material from Niger. This claim, of course, was based on crudely forged documents and should never have been made. The fact that the President did made this claim, and did so in a State of the Union address, is all the more troubling, especially given that the same statement was pulled from a speech he gave just a few months earlier.

What?Regime change was already US policy before we invaded Iraq--President Clinton did that when he signed HR 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act, in 1998.
The Iraq Liberation Act expressed the Clinton administration’s support for democratic opposition groups inside Iraq and authorized a variety of mechanisms by which to provide that support. These included military assistance in the form of supplies and training. However, the final section of the act expressly limits the administration to just these forms of military support. From this we can safely assert that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provided no policy precedent for invasion, air strikes or any use of American military force.


Go to top of page link
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 20
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/25/2015 10:59:36 AM
I forgot to mention somewhere in the argument that ISIS is buying a nuke, that a few months ago analysts were claiming they were burning cash faster than they could steal it out of banks in captured territory. I think we can relax that their propaganda magazine exaggerates.

Meanwhile, the president is not responsible for the "policy" of those working under him? apparently the buck no longer stops there. oh well, worked for Reagan, right?

leaving troops in Iraq? sure, if we wanted them held accountable in foreign courts for everything they do. and which TeaParty member wants to vote for the tax increase to pay for all that security? Paul Wolfowitz told us all that Iraqi oil was going to pay us back, but it turns out that memo was a lie, too. We did have a residual force that provided training, unfortunately, it didn't "Take" for a variety of reasons. When ISIS comes home to roost in Saudi Arabia, I'm sure they'll finally stop supporting them. in the meantime, apparently we all forgot we initially wanted ISIS...to take out Assad. apparently we're the victim of blowback yet again.

oh well, let's let another 4,000 America soldiers die there. its not like injured ones are going to cost the VA any future money. let's keep digging that hole called Iraq. or let it become a Sunni counter to Shiite Iran. how's that for some realpolitik?
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 21
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/25/2015 11:38:13 AM

Well actually he is an associate editor of the Post, not a reporter, but hey lets not let factual statement get in your way.

This is off of Woodward's official web site... " Woodward (born March 26, 1943) is regarded as one of America’s preeminent investigative reporters and non-fiction authors. "
But HEY, lets not let the facts get in the way of your ideology.
He is also a registered Democrat but says he votes independantly.
After 18 months of investigating he concluded Bush did not lie.


I forgot to mention somewhere in the argument that ISIS is buying a nuke, that a few months ago analysts were claiming they were burning cash faster than they could steal it out of banks in captured territory. I think we can relax that their propaganda magazine exaggerates.

Possibly but so far they have delivered on all there threats. I can bet you that the CIA is taking this very seriously.



leaving troops in Iraq? sure, if we wanted them held accountable in foreign courts for everything they do. and which TeaParty member wants to vote for the tax increase to pay for all that security? Paul Wolfowitz told us all that Iraqi oil was going to pay us back, but it turns out that memo was a lie, too. We did have a residual force that provided training, unfortunately, it didn't "Take" for a variety of reasons. When ISIS comes home to roost in Saudi Arabia, I'm sure they'll finally stop supporting them. in the meantime, apparently we all forgot we initially wanted ISIS...to take out Assad. apparently we're the victim of blowback yet again.


It's funny that you choose to refute experts on both sides of the political aisle that state the mistake of Obama to pull all troops. But further why has Obama recently been sending more troops to Iraq? There are 3000 plus troops currently in Afghanistan. Funny how President Obama was able to negotiate a promise they would not be prosecuted but not the original residual forces.
Bottom line, Obama inherited a stable Iraq with a developing government albeit with underlying political problems but his inattention led to the current mess.
 HFX_RGB2
Joined: 4/14/2015
Msg: 22
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/25/2015 11:53:39 AM

This is off of Woodward's official web site... " Woodward (born March 26, 1943) is regarded as one of America’s preeminent investigative reporters and non-fiction authors. "
But HEY, lets not let the facts get in the way of your ideology.


Great work at cutting of the part that shows you where wrong.

Bob Woodward (born March 26, 1943) is regarded as one of America’s preeminent investigative reporters and non-fiction authors. He has worked for The Washington Post since 1971 as a reporter, and is currently an associate editor of the Post.





Bottom line, Obama inherited a stable Iraq with a developing government albeit with underlying political problems but his inattention led to the current mess.


LOL, good one, what is next, you gonna tell me there is an invisible man in the sky pulling strings.
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 23
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/25/2015 1:36:28 PM
This is off of Woodward's official web site... " Woodward (born March 26, 1943) is regarded as one of America’s preeminent investigative reporters and non-fiction authors. "
But HEY, lets not let the facts get in the way of your ideology.



Great work at cutting of the part that shows you where wrong.
Bob Woodward (born March 26, 1943) is regarded as one of America’s preeminent investigative reporters and non-fiction authors. He has worked for The Washington Post since 1971 as a reporter, and is currently an associate editor of the Post.


So let me get that straight saying that he is considered an "investigative reporter" doesn't mean he is a reporter?
I guess you got me there!
It posts like that that baffle the mind but once again no statements are refuted personal attacks yes but no sensible rebuttal.
Meanwhile back to more serious discussion...

On Thursday President Obama had this to say,
"I'm very clear on the lessons of Iraq. I think it was a mistake for us to go in in the first place, despite the incredible efforts that were made by our men and women in uniform. Despite that error, those sacrifices allowed the Iraqis to take back their country. That opportunity was squandered by Prime Minister Maliki and the unwillingness to reach out effectively to the Sunni and Kurdish populations.

But today the question is not whether or not we are sending in contingents of U.S. ground troops. Today the question is: How do we find effective partners to govern in those parts of Iraq that right now are ungovernable and effectively defeat ISIL, not just in Iraq but in Syria?"

He is quick to blame Maliki but it was his job to hold Maliki responsible as Bush did. This is why 15,000 troops should have been left in Iraq, to continue training and to maintain a hand in the country forcing Maliki into a more democratic government. Instead, contrary to his political advisors and military advisors advice he pulled completely out and let Maliki destroy the progress so hard earned. For those who don't think they should have left troops then ask your self why there are 28,000 troops in S. Korea, 50,000 in Japan and 38,000 in Germany?


LOL, good one, what is next, you gonna tell me there is an invisible man in the sky pulling strings.


Not sure what "invisible men in the sky" have to do with this discussion but hey if you choose to believe in space aliens then knock yourself out!
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 24
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/25/2015 2:24:01 PM

Many of the events Clarke recounted during the hearings were also published in his memoir. Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the Administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit."[20] After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events.[21][22] [My emphasis]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke#cite_note-21

As to Woodward? Been years since anyone but his mirror has believed he is any kind of honest broker. He traded his skin for access.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 25
ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!
Posted: 5/25/2015 5:40:38 PM

After 18 months of investigating he concluded Bush did not lie.


BW does not have the same mettle he did in the 70's; to believe otherwise is the same as believing that Joe Nameth can still QB the NY Jets towards next years superbowl.


Obama inherited a stable Iraq


To say that Iraq was ever "stable" (post Saddam) is like saying that Bush handed Obama a stable economy
Iraq was quiescent because the factions wanted to give a semblance of peace so that foreign troops would start to exit.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > ISIS not ISIL had a Good Week!