FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Bush admin tortured for "proof" of Saddam-9/11 lin





handfleisch
This is the worst of the latest revelations of the torture scandal. Under Bush, people were tortured to try to get them to say that Saddam was connected to 9/11 via Al Queda. He wasn't connected to Al Queda, as intelligence agencies (and lots of regular people with any knowledge of the Saddam regime's ways) already knew.

Combine this with the fact that some of the torture techniques used were ones borrowed from the Chinese that they used to get false confessions out of American soldiers in Korea, and you end up with a truly horrendous picture: People being tortured to give info that doesn't exist or to give false confessions so that the Bush White House could have an excuse to go to war.

Krugman sums it up nicely here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/grand-unified-scandal/
Quote:


From Jonathan Landay at McClatchy, one of the few reporters to get the story right during the march to war:

Quote:
The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

Such information would’ve provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush’s main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network and Saddam’s regime.

The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush’s quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.


How, HOW can anyone -- individuals, CNN, etc -- be concerned with any of the trivial BS things currently going in the US political sphere (Bowgate, etc) when these serious crimes of historic proportions have just gone on, and we are still in the process of dealing with them? It borders on insanity. It's like the house next door to you is burning down, you hear children screaming inside, but you are not concerned enough to do anything because you're too busy trying to clean a few crumbs off your kitchen table.

Primary source here http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
deanhills
I'm confused here. I thought Iraq was invaded by more than one country (not only Bush) and that the reason it was invaded was to look for weapons of mass destruction? Where does 9/11 come from?

This is a quote from his State of the Union Address:
Quote:
It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.



Following what had happened afterwards, i.e. none of the weapons found, people are obviously more sensitive when their President is lying, and whether they are little or big lies, lies are lies.
hunnyhiteshseth
As I see things, and i may be wrong, Bush just needed a reason to invade Iraq. Firstly he tried to link up Saddam with 9/11 but when he failed in doing so, he gave 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' theory and went ahead with war.
By the way, it must have been apparent in first few days of war that Iraq didn't had any WMDs as if it had some they would have been used on American soldiers.


@dealhills -- Its true that whole coalition attacked Iraq but USA was its major constituent.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Where does 9/11 come from?

A very good question. I thought the supposed Iraq-9/11 connection was only brought up long after the invasion to try to justify it after no WMD's were found... NOT before the invasion in order to justify it then.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Where does 9/11 come from?

A very good question. I thought the supposed Iraq-9/11 connection was only brought up long after the invasion to try to justify it after no WMD's were found... NOT before the invasion in order to justify it then.


How totally wrong. The Bush administration was publicly spreading the disinformation of an Iraq-9/11 soon after the attack. Cheney himself did so in late 2001. The invasion of Iraq didn't start till March 2003. For people who think citizens should pass a basic history test before exercising their right to vote, you're both amazingly weak in your knowledge about events that happened even recently.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
For people who think citizens should pass a basic history test before exercising their right to vote, you're both amazingly weak in your knowledge about events that happened even recently.
How so? Perhaps you can enlighten us with your knowledge about the events that happened recently? Would also be a good idea to read our postings first. The test I suggested did not contain any history questions. Refer to our discussion in that thread:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-106340-2.html
Phinx
One way or another, despite the disagreement, it makes one think that both 9/11 and WMD search are interconnected and were possibly used as an excuse to invade Iraq. Then why invade? Just oil or something else? Just because Saddam went down the regime in Iraq is still very unstable despite its progress towards a democratic regime. All those live were wasted in any case, but if the country would revert back to an autocratic rule, Americans would go berserk. Judging by Obama's promise, American troops will be extracted in the nearest future, but this is highly questionable for a reason. The agreement signed last year- SOFA - states that Iraq government wishes to allow and even insist on stay of American troops for prolonged period of time for peacekeeping purposes in the territory of Iraq. I might have missed the bit about a certain number of troops being extracted or any exceptions being mentioned, but despite this, Iraqis people will continue to rebel and protest. It is well known how a forced democratisation can go wrong.
Solon_Poledourus
I remember Bush and Cheney talking about how Iraq may have been harboring Al-Qaeda cells, late in 2001 and all through 2002 and 2003. Many people in the press tried to call bullsh*t on this connection, but were ignored and shoved out of the dialogue at the time.
Everyone from the Christian Science Monitor to MSNBC tried to inform people that there was no connection, but nobody would listen. Polls taken at the time revealed that 40-something percent of Americans(in 2003) believed that Saddam was personally responsible, in part, for the 9/11 attacks. Many people thought at least some of the hijackers were Iraqi citizens(none were).
The sad thing is, they didn't need to torture anyone to gain a pretext for invading Iraq. All they had to do was keep the media rolling and insinuate a connection during speeches. They never even had to say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, all they did was mention Iraq or Saddam a few times in the same speeches about Al-Qaeda and 9/11.
It's like A Clockwork Orange, associating classical music with murder makes a person afraid of classical music, even though it's not the musics fault that people get killed. And we were all just a bunch of young Malcolm Macdowell's strapped to a chair, being forced to listen to classical music(Iraq) while watching videos of people getting raped and murdered(9/11). OK. If you never saw the movie, that reference made no sense.
At any rate, the previous administration started a war based on lies, had a man hung for doing what we knew he would do after we helped him take power in Iraq, and got many good, innocent people killed. For what? Are we to believe the conspiracy theorists who think this is a plot for the West to colonize the Middle East? Or are we to believe that one day we just decided that Saddam was too much of a threat to his own people(of course, we knew this for decades)? Do we believe there actually was an Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection? Was it for the oil? WMD?
If we have to go to war, then so be it, but I for one would at least like a straight answer as to why my friends, family, and countrymen are being ordered to give their lives in a foreign land.
deanhills
I agree that the Iraq war should never have happened. The discussion about the reasons why Iraq was invaded made my think about other wars, such as WWII for example, and has there ever really been a good reason for a war? Yet man seems to continue along this path, we never seem to learn our lessons. Or maybe we just don't want to, is war built into our psyche?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
such as WWII for example, and has there ever really been a good reason for a war?

Well, the reason for entering the war in Europe was dubious... a hyped up U-boat attack and the desire to help allies.

The Pacific war, however... When the enemy attacks your military base, I'd say that's good cause for a war.
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, the reason for entering the war in Europe was dubious... a hyped up U-boat attack and the desire to help allies.
Vietnam had very similar reasoning with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This is what happens when politicians have control of the military.
ocalhoun wrote:
The Pacific war, however... When the enemy attacks your military base, I'd say that's good cause for a war.
Well, this one is tricky too. I won't try to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the USA did cut off credit and petrolium to Japan during it's war with China. At the time, Japan was recieving petrolium from three sources, the Dutch East Indies, Burma, and the USA. Our blockade included all three sources. They attacked the US Navy to remove us from the Pacific in oeder to reinstate their control as a Naval power and regain their petrolium source. We reacted to their attack by going to war with them. Or as the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto put it, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
So maybe it was not the smartest idea to sanction them, but it was even less intelligent of them to respond with violence.
deanhills
I thought Pearl Harbour could have been avoided? Apparently there were people in Washington DC who had warned that this was going to happen. So agreed, the worst enemy has to be politicians. Perhaps if the British had taken on Germany much earlier, much of Hitler's aggressive move into Europe could have been countered.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I thought Pearl Harbour could have been avoided? Apparently there were people in Washington DC who had warned that this was going to happen.

There were plenty of people who warned that the USSR would nuke the USA, some of whom advocated nuking them first, before they had a chance to make the first strike...
What would have happened if those warnings were listened to?
You can't heed every warning, and sometimes mistakes are made about which ones to listen to.
hunnyhiteshseth
deanhills wrote:
Or maybe we just don't want to, is war built into our psyche?


No, war is built in our DNA!! Laughing
Deviating slightly from the topic, as Darwin said, nature works by struggle between various living organisms and ensures the "survival of fittest". This struggle can be both intra-species & interspecies and I guess these wars are our way of intra-species struggle to survive!
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I thought Pearl Harbour could have been avoided? Apparently there were people in Washington DC who had warned that this was going to happen.

There were plenty of people who warned that the USSR would nuke the USA, some of whom advocated nuking them first, before they had a chance to make the first strike...
What would have happened if those warnings were listened to?
You can't heed every warning, and sometimes mistakes are made about which ones to listen to.
At the time when the Pearl Harbour warnings were made there was a real threat of war in the Pacific. The number of war ships in Pearl Harbour is testimony to that. Given the state of war and Japanese military preparedness, perhaps this was slightly different? The military could at least have ensured that the navy would be a little less vulnerable than what they had been when the Japanese attacked them.

hunnyhiteshseth wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Or maybe we just don't want to, is war built into our psyche?


No, war is built in our DNA!! Laughing
Deviating slightly from the topic, as Darwin said, nature works by struggle between various living organisms and ensures the "survival of fittest". This struggle can be both intra-species & interspecies and I guess these wars are our way of intra-species struggle to survive!
Good point Smile I was thinking about that during this weekend, while I was watching some movies. And wondering about the violence in them and the graphic details about the bloody murders. There is a part of us that is really dark. On the one hand we have laws against torture and awful acts of killing and slaughter of human beings, but it is as though the movies are getting more bloody and gruesome and people seem to love them. Boggles the mind ... Smile
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.