Re: the Iraq war in general

(also see this post)

Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn’t it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein’s regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.

McConnell: “Yeah, I mean that I… there’s no question that they don’t wish this exercise well, which is why they keep moving the goalposts and keeping the issue alive. In the meantime we’re talking about the lives of our soldiers, we’re talking about the lives of a very large number of Iraqis…“

Okay, fine, no WMD, so there’s one “goalpost” gone.

Saddam’s regime gone, there’s another.

Saddam had NO ties to 9-11, Iraq handed over to “sovereign” government, and on and onand on.

Hell, we’re not “moving” the goalposts, they just keep falling over and the wingnuts keep putting up new ones.

Putting 20,000 more troops in Bagdad ain’t gonna do it, besides only about 5,000 can be in combat at one time, they have to sleep and eat and be off duty they can’t all be in combat 24/7, and 5,000 is too little too late.

So Mr. Decider do the will of the people and get us out, 20 months is too long to wait to hand your war off to another President. Redeploy them, some to Kuwait, some to protect the border between the Kurds, get Iraq’s neighbors involved, Turkey, Syria, Iran because it’s in their intrest to have a stable Iraq…Dummy!!

Bush doesn’t give a hoot about vetertans or troops.

He lied the USA into a war, he had planned for years before he even became president.

He is a pig and should be tried for treason toward the United States of America, along with his “friends” that control the USA in the CDC, EPA and all other aspects of Amerian life.