U.S. Intelligence Offers Gloomy Outlook for Iraq

By the way, I just wrote a rather sizeable tax check (sizable to me, anyway) to our government yesterday.
I'm pretty excited that my (our) money is going to be thrown in a big hole in the desert.
Completely destabilizing a country and turning it into a breeding ground for terrorism...what a great way to spend our tax dollars and keep our nation safe!
 
You have serious problems if you think that Iraq wasn't already a "breeding ground" for Terrorism.

I'm sure Iran or Syria aren't "breeding grounds" for terrorism either unless we attack them.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']You have serious problems if you think that Iraq wasn't already a "breeding ground" for Terrorism.

I'm sure Iran or Syria aren't "breeding grounds" for terrorism either unless we attack them.[/quote]

Do you read newspapers?
Find me one legit source that shows Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism before we invaded. We are talking about Iraq here, not Syria, not Iran.
 
Nope, but Saudi Arabi is.

Thats where 19 of the hijackers came from.

But Bush is freinds with the Saudi Royal Oil Family, so it's okay.
 
Ya know what, I take it back...
Our president has given us all the proof we need:

US President George W Bush - 17 June 2004:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda."
Click to expand...

I'll just ignore the 9/11 comission because of Bush's awesome logic.

9/11 Commission - 16 June 2004:
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."
Click to expand...
 
 
Also I love how you liberals think that Al-qaeda is the only terrorist group in the world and thus always try to point to the "no al-qaeda and Iraq ties" speal.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']They even have a satalite pic on the site.
[/quote]

salamana_pak.jpg


Dumbass. I called your bluff.
 
I said legit news source.
Not "FreeRepublic.com ~ The Premier Conservative News Forum "

Tip:
If they are selling coffee mugs on the front page...they don't count.
frcoffeemug.jpg
 
Statement by the founder of Free Republic:

In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']I said legit news source.
Not "FreeRepublic.com ~ The Premier Conservative News Forum "[/quote]

Please, don't try to ignore the fact that they use the New York times as a source: a liberal paper.

Sorry, but you can't spin this one.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='CheapyD']I said legit news source.
Not "FreeRepublic.com ~ The Premier Conservative News Forum "[/quote]

Please, don't try to ignore the fact that they use the New York times as a source: a liberal paper.

Sorry, but you can't spin this one.[/quote]

[quote name='Free Republic']Statement by the founder of Free Republic:

In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.[/quote]

No spinning necessary.
 
Find me the link to the NYT article....

Also, you do realize how much bogus info the US has gotten from Iraqi defectors, right? You know they get paid by the US...

What happened to our golden boy informant Chalabi...the guy who is now under arrest, I believe?

I guess the real question is how come the Bush administration isn't thrown Salman Pak in our faces...you would think if it was legit, we'd be hearing about it all time.
Even Rush agrees:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742323/posts
 
The same PBS article cites:

[Editors Note, June 2004: A year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein.]
 
Scrubking, are those the same defectors that were telling our intelligence agency that Saddam was stockpiling WMDs, had mobile weapons labs, and trying to get plutonium from Africa. You know, like Chalabi. By the way, whatever happened to him??? Oh yeah:

dubya-chalabi-oval-office.jpg
 
Supreme leap of logic made by those on the left.

1. Was al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?
Yes.

2. Is al-Qaeda in the Phillipines?
Yes.

3. Did al-Qaeda blow up a night club in Bali killing hundreds?
Yes.

4. Did al-Qaeda blow up several trains in Spain killing hundreds?
Yes.

5. Did al-Qaeda blow up two embasies in east Africa?
Yes.

6. Did al-Qaeda operate in America prior to 9/11 and are they still here?
Yes.

7. Does al-Qaeda have supporters and cells in Britain?
Yes.

8. Is al-Qaeda active in Saudi Arabia?
Yes.

9. Was it al-Qaeda that attacked the USS Cole in Yemen?
Yes.

10. Does al-Qaeda have any operatives or sympathisers in Iraq?
No, well yes! But not until Bush invaded! He uncorked the military for a quest of oil and power to make his buddies at Halliburton rich! They were never there until WE invaded them! They're merely helping defend Holy Shia shrines! Saddam and bin Laden hated each other they only showed up after Saddam was out of power!

So, to understand this logic al-Qaeda can operate and have presences around the world including South Florida, Boston, DC, New York, Madrid, Germany, Britain, the Phlllipines, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan ,Bali but NOT Iraq. Uh huh.... and McDonald's has no locations in China.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
10. Does al-Qaeda have any operatives or sympathisers in Iraq?
No, well yes! But not until Bush invaded! He uncorked the military for a quest of oil and power to make his buddies at Halliburton rich! They were never there until WE invaded them! They're merely helping defend Holy Shia shrines! Saddam and bin Laden hated each other they only showed up after Saddam was out of power!
[/quote]

Finally, we agree on something.
 
PAD, there's a difference between a state-sponsored terrorist country like Libya vs. one that isn't. Al-Qaeda was a threat to Saddam, you know.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']By the way, I just wrote a rather sizeable tax check (sizable to me, anyway) to our government yesterday.
I'm pretty excited that my (our) money is going to be thrown in a big hole in the desert.
Completely destabilizing a country and turning it into a breeding ground for terrorism...what a great way to spend our tax dollars and keep our nation safe![/quote]

What?!? You'd rather we spent that money on health care or education or protecting ourselves from terrorists?!? COMMIE!!!!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

Phillipines
Bali
Spain
east Africa
Britain
Saudi Arabia
Yemen

[/quote]

Perhaps we should invade all those countries as well? I don't think terrorism was non-existant in Iraq before the war, but it is much worse there now than before.

Anyway, the reason for the war wasn't to get al-Qaeda out of Iraq, it was to secure ourselves from Saddam and the WMD right? Now you're saying,
"Well...yes the WMD aren't there, but we needed to invade anyway, so it's cool." (Note that I only refer to WMD again because you are discussing the reason for invading, indirectly. I am sick of talking about it as well.)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
10. Does al-Qaeda have any operatives or sympathisers in Iraq?
No, well yes! But not until Bush invaded! He uncorked the military for a quest of oil and power to make his buddies at Halliburton rich! They were never there until WE invaded them! They're merely helping defend Holy Shia shrines! Saddam and bin Laden hated each other they only showed up after Saddam was out of power!

So, to understand this logic al-Qaeda can operate and have presences around the world including South Florida, Boston, DC, New York, Madrid, Germany, Britain, the Phlllipines, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan ,Bali but NOT Iraq. Uh huh.... and McDonald's has no locations in China.[/quote]

So, since al-Queda was in America, does that mean Chicken George was sponsoring their activities? Because that's the argument you're making re: Iraq/Saddam.
 
Iraqi National Congress was Chalabi's organization, and Chalabi has been thoroughly discredited.

CIA report about Iraq - Best case scenario is years of struggle and strife, worst is civil war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html
Bush says elections will fix everything, and that they'll all hold hands and be nice from then on. But thats exactly what he said about sovereignty. They aren't "marching towards democracy", they're marching towards civil war.

Two republicans, Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, slam Bush over Iraq:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002037010_senateiraq16.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/international/middleeast/15CND-REBU.html

When Bush goes on stage and talks about how great the war is going, he sounds more like the Iraqi Information Minister than the President of the United States.

They said we would be welcomed with open arms, as liberators, that they'd be dancing in the streets and holding parades in our honor. If he's living in that kind of fantasy land, I'd be surprised if Bush wasn't still doing drugs today.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Scrubking']They even have a satalite pic on the site.
[/quote]

salamana_pak.jpg


Dumbass. I called your bluff.[/quote]


Need a PAD canned response for this one, please.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
They said we would be welcomed with open arms, as liberators, that they'd be dancing in the streets and holding parades in our honor. [/quote]

Those arms closed when we dropped bombs on civilian houses and red cross/crescent convoys and shelters and murdered civilians and humanitarian aid workers.
 
Those arms closed when we dropped bombs on civilian houses and red cross/crescent convoys and shelters and murdered civilians and humanitarian aid workers.
Click to expand...
Shit happens in war, they understand that. The issues in Iraq are far more complicated than that. Deep resentment and embarrassment about an outside country having to come in, even if they didn't like Saddam... Different ethnic groups vying for power, mistrust and resentment of Americans in general... And thats just barely scratching the surface. If our only problem was them being upset about civilians being killed, we would have it easy.
 
If we went in as liberators and freed the people,things would not be like they are now.

Instead, we instilled fear and a sense of oppression by practically carpet-bombing the capitol city and killing more civilians than soldiers and government official.
 
The shiites are mad because we said we'd give them straight elections, one man one vote, and we broke our word and won't do that. The shiites are the majority and we're going to give them 1/3rd of something like an electoral college and congress system. They are understandably pissed off since they are the ones that were oppressed under Hussien, they're the majority in the country, and they want a straight up and down vote. It would be like separating the vote in the U.S. to be 1/5th white, 1/5th black, 1/5th asian, 1/5th spanish, etc. If I were them, I'd be outraged.

The president we installed in Iraq has no support from anyone. He couldn't walk down the street in Baghdad. And they think that they'll just pull an Iraqi Army out of thin air? That will do all the dirty work for us? They're playing politics with this war. They're holding off on the major battles (and major U.S. casualties) until after the election. Just like how we had al-sadr surrounded, and then 3 days before the RNC, we let him walk out of the mosque with all his soldiers and weapons.

People do not know how badly this war is going. This isn't getting better anytime soon. Bush must live in the world of Perfect, in those Saab commercials. If we instilled fear in the people we're fighting against instead of the people we're fighting for, we'd be doing a lot better. They aren't afraid of us, how many times have we gone into a city like Fallujah only to pull out? We're basicly leaving those cities in the hands of the insurgents.
 
Well, now Chicken George is on record saying that he doesn't believe Iraq is going downhill rapidly, despite the intelligence he's been given:

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-
uscia223980807sep22,0,4205775.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines

Bush shrugs off his CIA skeptics

BY KEN FIREMAN
WASHINGTON BUREAU

September 22, 2004

President George W. Bush yesterday brushed aside a bleak CIA assessment of Iraq's future, saying the agency was "just guessing" in forecasting that the country may descend into civil war.

After a speech to the UN General Assembly, Bush was asked about a National Intelligence Estimate in July that said the best to be expected was a tenuous stability and that the country might descend into civil war.

"The CIA laid out several scenarios that said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better," Bush said. "And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like. The Iraqi citizens are defying the pessimistic predictions."
 
I see, when US intelligence said Iraq posessed WMD they were wrong, but now that things are going down the shitter they are right?

Ok.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I see, when US intelligence said Iraq posessed WMD they were wrong, but now that things are going down the shitter they are right?

Ok.

CTL[/quote]

Actually, you can reverse that argument, can't you?

Bush was big on CIA intelligence when it fit his world view and his war lust, but now that it shows him what a pickle he's in he claps his hands over his ears.

Also, you don't need CIA intelligence to know Iraq is going down the toilet. All you need is a TV with cable and an Internet connection. The CIA report just confirms what we're already seeing.

Of course, Bush would rather we believe him than our lyin' eyes.
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='CTLesq']I see, when US intelligence said Iraq posessed WMD they were wrong, but now that things are going down the shitter they are right?

Ok.

CTL[/quote]

Actually, you can reverse that argument, can't you?

Bush was big on CIA intelligence when it fit his world view and his war lust, but now that it shows him what a pickle he's in he claps his hands over his ears.

Also, you don't need CIA intelligence to know Iraq is going down the toilet. All you need is a TV with cable and an Internet connection. The CIA report just confirms what we're already seeing.

Of course, Bush would rather we believe him than our lyin' eyes.[/quote]

You could. But I'm not bitching the old intel was bad or the new intel is bad.

There is reasonable consistency in my position.

1. I didn't oppose the war. Nor did I pretend that I had access to magic intel which contradicted 12 years of Hussein behavior and the established world view that he posessed prohibited WMD.

2. I am not claiming things are great in Iraq. I conceed there are problems. (But just because there are problems doesn't mean we should cut and run. But that is an entirely different argument.)

Whereas other people on this forum claimed they knew the CIA intel was wrong prior to the war now its magically right?

That seems rather convient doesn't it?

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='CTLesq']I see, when US intelligence said Iraq posessed WMD they were wrong, but now that things are going down the shitter they are right?

Ok.

CTL[/quote]

Actually, you can reverse that argument, can't you?

Bush was big on CIA intelligence when it fit his world view and his war lust, but now that it shows him what a pickle he's in he claps his hands over his ears.

Also, you don't need CIA intelligence to know Iraq is going down the toilet. All you need is a TV with cable and an Internet connection. The CIA report just confirms what we're already seeing.

Of course, Bush would rather we believe him than our lyin' eyes.[/quote]

You could. But I'm not bitching the old intel was bad or the new intel is bad.

There is reasonable consistency in my position.

1. I didn't oppose the war. Nor did I pretend that I had access to magic intel which contradicted 12 years of Hussein behavior and the established world view that he posessed prohibited WMD.

2. I am not claiming things are great in Iraq. I conceed there are problems. (But just because there are problems doesn't mean we should cut and run. But that is an entirely different argument.)

Whereas other people on this forum claimed they knew the CIA intel was wrong prior to the war now its magically right?

That seems rather convient doesn't it?

CTL[/quote]

CTLesq, I understand what you are saying. But it's pretty easy to assume the CIA knows what it's talking about when anyone with Internet and cable television can come to the same conclusion by watching the news from Iraq. The only people who doesn't seem to understand we're in trouble over there is Bush and his sycophants.

And for the record, I'm not for cutting and running either. But I want to know we have a plan, and it seems as though Bush is just making it up as he goes along and hoping for the best. Say what you will about Kerry, he has a plan and it doesn't involve cutting and running.
 
You can make the case both ways about the CIA.

What lends credibility to this report, is that it was written in the summer, and many of its predictions have since come true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top