Question for Iraq war supporters

[finebead]

If it was about oil, why don't we have any of it? Why don't we control their oil fields? That line is cheap liberal rhetoric.

We do control it. It is not cheap liberal rhetoric.

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches
By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
Published: 07 January 2007

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece

I don't fault you for not knowing this, as it has not been widely reported in the US. I also think this is why the US plans to leave troops in Iraq permanenty, to protect the oil fields.

From Alan Greenspan's book:

Saturday, September 15, 2007
Greenspan: Iraq War Is Largely About Oil

EconomicsBriefing.com has obtained a pre-release copy of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's new book, The Age of Turbulence. In it Greenspan, a life-long Republican, writes: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

Greenspan, who comments on every president from Nixon to the current President Bush, seems to leave his harshest criticism for the current president.

http://www.economicsbriefing.com/2007/09/greenspan-iraq-war-is-largely-about-oil.html

From the former military commander on the ground in Iraq:

While Hennessy, Matson, Friedman and Bryson discussed green technology, the subject of America’s operations in Iraq was also a hotly debated topic. Abizaid, who was formerly the Commander of the United States Central Command, quickly established a connection between the two topics.

“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/10/15/roundtableDebatesEnergyIssues

I have sent the links to gunnyl and hopefully he will insert them for me. Edited: GunnyL, I passed 15 posts, so I got them updated myself!

 

[finebead]

Your moronic drivel has been shown for what it is every time it has been spouted by you idiots. You think if you repeat the same tired lies over enough times someone will start believing you.

One out of three, I guess yor doing good tonight. Be so kind as to post evidence he ever said imminent threat or that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I won't hold my breath.

Vice President Cheney states Mohamed Atta met with Sr. Iraqi intelligence official five months prior to the attack...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k[/ame]

At least I'm out of 'post hell' and can post my own links now...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Vice President Cheney states Mohamed Atta met with Sr. Iraqi intelligence official five months prior to the attack...

How does this equate to a statement that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

 

[finebead]

How does this equate to a statement that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

How does it not? The attack leader is meeting with Sr. Iraqi intelligence officer five months prior to the attack? Why did Cheney say that on Meet the press if it was not relevant?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does it not?

A conversation between two people does not create a given relatonship between those two people; noting that conversation doesnt in any way make any claim as to what it was about.

Cheney claimed there was a relationship between Iraq and AQ. There's NO claim that there is a relationship between Iraq and 9/11.

 

[mattskramer]

How does this equate to a statement that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

 

[finebead]

March 14, 2003 edition

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Where did half the american people get the conviction that Iraq played a roll in the 9/11 attacks? From the dems? Naw. It was from the president giving speeches on Iraq, and mentioning 9/11 eight times. Face it, many americans aren't that bright, and you don't have to say it specifically to get them to believe Iraq was involved in 9/11. Just weave them into the same speech. It looks like a propaganda technique.

 

[Steerpike]

You think half the American people pay attention to the President's speeches? I'd say that's rather optimistic.

I suspect that once the war was underway a good portion of the American people are just stupid enough to assume Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when put to the question.

 

[finebead]

A conversation between two people does not create a given relatonship between those two people; noting that conversation doesnt in any way make any claim as to what it was about.

Cheney claimed there was a relationship between Iraq and AQ. There's NO claim that there is a relationship between Iraq and 9/11.

Listen to the clip again, Cheney's statement begins:

"With respect to 9/11...."

How do you interpret that to mean Atta's alleged meeting in Prague with Sr. Iraqi intelligence does NOT indicate there is a relationship between Iraq and 9/11?

 

[maineman]

Clinton is the easiest of the two, your claim he did not commit perjury is hilarious, he has admitted he did it, he has been punished for doing it.

As for Kennedy, only a retard believes he did not kill that girl by his actions. Are you a retard?

Do go on and make all the idiotic claims you want. They did not wash the first through 50th time and they do not wash now.

Clinton is not "guilty" of perjury. period. Perjury is a crime. He was never charged with the crime and never found guilty of committing it.

Killing someone by your actions does not make you a murderer, does it? retard? Yet you call Kennedy a murderer. why is that, you hypocritical retard??

YOu play fast and loose with libelous statements and then get all huffy when people point out that Bush's statements most certainly created a false impression.

you are a hypocrite. a liar. a moron. and a retard. proven.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Listen to the clip again, Cheney's statement begins:

"With respect to 9/11...."

How do you interpret that to mean Atta's alleged meeting in Prague with Sr. Iraqi intelligence does NOT indicate there is a relationship between Iraq and 9/11?

You remind me of those people that argue that the Bush 41 administration gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. Is that one of your pet theories as well?

 

[maineman]

You remind me of those people that argue that the Bush 41 administration gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. Is that one of your pet theories as well?

nice dodge.

 

[finebead]

You remind me of those people that argue that the Bush 41 administration gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. Is that one of your pet theories as well?

Irrelevant drivel...

I have demonstrated the vice president of the USA on Meet the press, saying, "With repect to 9/11, there are reports of a meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta and Sr. Iraqi Intelligence officers, 5 months prior to the attack".

That clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration did link Iraq and Saddam to 9/11.

That is despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission found NO link between Iraq and 9/11.

That is why the American people believe they were lied to, by this administration in the runup to the war in Iraq, and the American people are correct on that one.

 

[Steerpike]

Finebead:

The only problem is, there WAS a report that the meeting took place in Prague, and as far as I know Czech intelligence stands by that account to this day. Doesn't prove a link between Iraq and 9/11, but if the meeting took place are you saying the VP isn't allowed to mention it?

 

[finebead]

Finebead:

The only problem is, there WAS a report that the meeting took place in Prague, and as far as I know Czech intelligence stands by that account to this day. Doesn't prove a link between Iraq and 9/11, but if the meeting took place are you saying the VP isn't allowed to mention it?

The vice president of the US has a duty to be responsible in what he says to the people he supposedly works for. Now, everyone believes there WAS NO LINK between Iraq and the 9/11 attack.

If there WAS NO LINK between Iraq and the 9/11 attack, why mention this meeting, that maybe it occurred and maybe it didn't occur, at all?

You would only mention it on Meet the Press in support of a point, that everyone now agrees was a false point. So, again, why even bring it up???

 

[Steerpike]

The vice president of the US has a duty to be responsible in what he says to the people he supposedly works for. Now, everyone believes there WAS NO LINK between Iraq and the 9/11 attack.

If there WAS NO LINK between Iraq and the 9/11 attack, why mention this meeting, that maybe it occurred and maybe it didn't occur, at all?

You would only mention it on Meet the Press in support of a point, that everyone now agrees was a false point. So, again, why even bring it up???

Those are all valid points. One thing to keep in mind though, is hindsight is always easy. You say "everyone NOW agrees" and you mentioned the 9/11 Commission Report. Cheney's statements were prior to that. If he thought at the time there was a link and was trying to make than point, then I don't have a problem with it. If he knew at the time that there was no link and was trying to create a false impression, then I have a problem with it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those are all valid points. One thing to keep in mind though, is hindsight is always easy. You say "everyone NOW agrees" and you mentioned the 9/11 Commission Report. Cheney's statements were prior to that. If he thought at the time there was a link and was trying to make than point, then I don't have a problem with it. If he knew at the time that there was no link and was trying to create a false impression, then I have a problem with it.

There was a topic that went on and on and on regardting this.

They say he lied. For that to stick, they have to show that he knew what he said was wrong.

Knowing they cannot do so, those that claim he lied then say they dont have to show that Cheney knew better -- the're simply voicing their opinion, and as such, dont have to show anything (see the quotes and links to same in my sig).

You're right -- If he thought at the time there was a link and was trying to make than point, then neither you nor I nor anyone else -should- have a problem with it

 

[Steerpike]

There was a topic that went on and on and on regardting this.

They say he lied. For that to stick, they have to show that he knew what he said was wrong.

Knowing they cannot do so, those that claim he lied then say they dont have to show that Cheney knew better -- the're simply voicing their opinion, and as such, dont have to show anything (see the quotes and links to same in my sig).

You're right -- If he thought at the time there was a link and was trying to make than point, then neither you nor I nor anyone else -should- have a problem with it

Yes, that was the whole problem with the WMD issue, with people claiming "Bush lied," but forgetting that it was widely accepted that Hussein had WMDs, and not only did Bush think it but foreign governments thought it and a substantial percentage of the Congress thought it, and the Clinton administration thought it. When you make that point, people use fall back on the argument that Bush somehow deceived them all, which is ludicrous.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, that was the whole problem with the WMD issue, with people claiming "Bush lied," but forgetting that it was widely accepted that Hussein had WMDs, and not only did Bush think it but foreign governments thought it and a substantial percentage of the Congress thought it, and the Clinton administration thought it. When you make that point, people use fall back on the argument that Bush somehow deceived them all, which is ludicrous.

Espceially given that in their next breath, the same people will tell you how stupid Bush is.

 

[finebead]

There was a topic that went on and on and on regardting this.

They say he lied. For that to stick, they have to show that he knew what he said was wrong.

Knowing they cannot do so, those that claim he lied then say they dont have to show that Cheney knew better -- the're simply voicing their opinion, and as such, dont have to show anything (see the quotes and links to same in my sig).

You're right -- If he thought at the time there was a link and was trying to make than point, then neither you nor I nor anyone else -should- have a problem with it

In any case, the administration was WRONG about the reasons why we were led into the Iraq war.

You can say they were WRONG but they thought they were right in which case they are simply incompetent, or you can say they were WRONG and they knew they didn't have justification so they manipulated the intelligence to make the case for war therefore they lied to us.

I believe they knew they did not have factual evidence to back up their claims, so they manipulated the intel, effectively lying to the people so enough of them would support the war.