Pentagon Office Produced 'Alternative' Intelligence on Iraq

[ted]

People keep sniffing up the wrong tree when looking for things concerning the Iraq war. The Al-Qaeda stuff is secondary, at best. From the beginning, I never felt that we should have even brought them into the equation when listing reasons for going into Iraq. They simply didn't have much of a relationship at all with Saddam, if any. Playing that card was the wrong thing to do, and was not the reason why we went in.

The reasons are many, but have little to do with any supposed connections between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. To use them as a reason for going in is the mistake, not the fact that we went in.

Personally, I don't think we should have used any other excuse except for the fact that Saddam kept stalling the inspection process set up at the end of the Gulf War. His repeated abuse of the process agreed upon by him set the stage for doubt and easily created a hostile enviroment which led to us thinking he may be developing WMD's.

All this extra fluff about Al-Qaeda was the wrong way to sell it, and it really didn't need to be used. We had enough to go by without it in the first place.

t.

The problem is there is no valid excuse for the invasion. We went off and invaded a country that had the highest likelihood of any nation in the Middle East of devolving into a Civil War. Iraq posed no threat to the United States. It was effectively disarmed and contained. Saddam, being a secular dictator was mortal enemies with Al Qaeda. There was just no reason for the war.

Even before we went in, I was not convinced that he still had any usable WMD, especially considering that the weapons inspectors all thought that Iraq was pretty much disarmed. Moreover, even if he did have them, which he did not, there was never any indication that he would provide them to any terrorist groups as he never did in all the time we know he had them. Anyway you slice it, the war was a strategic mistake and a diversion in the war on terrorism.

Thanks, but I know better.

In fact, I was never completely convinced that he had WMD's, or was actively selling them off to other terrorist groups, either.

But, that's not why we went in. We went in because he repeatedly broke the terms of his surrender which was a result of our cease fire in the first Gulf War. He repeatedly thwarted their intentions to inspect various suspected sites, he repeatedly conducted himself in a manner which indicated that he was hiding something, and he repeatedly brought the inspectors to a point where they simply gave up in frustration, only to be smoothed over once he had a chance to clear out a site which they wanted to inspect. Every single one of those inspectors expressed their displeasure with their treatment, and continually made comments reflecting their opinions that Saddam appeared to be hiding something. It wasn't until the very last few weeks that they "changed" their minds and decided that there was, all of a sudden, a big misunderstanding about the whole thing. "Ol' Saddam, you know he's only joking" only made the scene when it was understood that we were done playing with him. Up until that point, every inspector who was delayed wa on the news letting us know that he wasn't happy, and that something needed to be done.

Why?

Well, here's my opinion:

The UN Inspectors, unknown to themselves, were simple idiots placed there to perpetuate a lie conceived by the UN itself, and in cooperation with the Iraqi Govt. Whether there was anything real there to see, or not, I think these people were led around the country to show that "inspections" were being carried out. I think these inspections were a lie, but most likely not known to the simple low-guy inspectors themselves.

While the inspectors frustrations were growing at the slight of hand attitude displayed by Saddam, I think they were close to finding.......something.

I'm not sure what, exactly, but I think they came close several times. I think that the leaders of these teams were brought in, eventually, and briefed by their bosses with information supplied to them from the top levels of the UN leadership.

All of a sudden, the tuned changed from one of frustration at Saddam, to one in his defense. Suddenly, seemingly overnight, all of these inspectors changed their song, and were led out of the country eventually. For some reason, that one idiot was the man picked for the PR (I can't remember his name at the moment.....it'll come to me eventually....), and off he went to tell us how stupid we were in believing that Saddam had anything to hide.

It was this same guy who, prior to his probable talking to, sang the loudest against Saddam during most of the time between the aftermath of the Gulf War, and the time just before our invasion.

Ah! I now remember his name: Scott Ritter!

This one buffoon, who made such a ridiculous speech of capitulation to the Iraqi General Assembly, is the one I was thinking of. For years, he condemned Saddam for playing his games with such high stakes in the balance, and then suddenly, he changed his tune. Why?

Anyway, I personally think that there was more to all of this than meets the eye in the general press. I think there is a lot to be discovered about the time leading up to our invasion, and I think it would justify it if the whole truth was ever released. I think it had plenty to do with back room, dirty deals between Saddam's Govt and the UN.

Regardless, the facts remain: Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions which resulted in numerous other resolutions designed to bring him into compliance of the term spelled out following the Gulf War. His repeated disregard to these numerous resolutions created a climate of unsuredness and fear within the rest of the world. This uneasiness, which he created directly by his actions, gave enough cause, in my opinion, to warrant an invasion if he was to continue to disregard future warnings.

He did, in fact, disregard several future warnings. Even that idiot Ritter went over to plead the case for Saddam right in front of him:

http://www.c-span.org/iraq/ritter.asp

And to no avail. We even sat by while one of our own citizens made a passionate speech to Saddam to bow to the pressure and come to terms with at least some of the resolutions, and he remained defiant.

My question to you is this: How much longer would you have waited?

I'm sorry, but your rosy picture of a weak little oppressed Saddam is false. He posed a great threat to the US based on the fact that he was not allowing the UN inspectors full access to the sites which they deemed important enough to look into. By continually hampering them from their duties, he placed an element of doubt in the mind of the US, and the US rightfully activated parts of resolutions designed to force him into compliance. The activations were put in place by the UN, and they failed, on numerous occasions, to enforce their own words. It wa through these parts of the resolutions that we would find the only real tool needed to bring Iraq into compliance, although we waited over ten years before we used them.

He posed a threat to neighboring countries, based on the fact that he invaded Kuwait, bombed Israel, invaded Iran, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands within his own borders.

But, you will say that much of this happened before the Gulf war, and that he was "contained" afterward. Nonsense!

Aside from the countless violations of numerous UN resolutions, he actively tried to assassinate a former US President, repeatedly "painted" allied aircraft with illegal radar equipment, continued his oppression of any possible defectors and detractors, and continued a culture of rape, murder, torture, and henious crimes throughout his time of "containment".

If ever there was a ruler of a country who needed a good old fashined invasion to depose him, this was the one.

You can say it was a war of election, or a war of choice, or whatever you want to call it, and that's fine, but at least bring some honesty to the table when you do.

Putting Saddam into context for what he was, and what he would have been if given the chance, is the one tool you are missing.

Personally, I think we have made some mistakes when we were selling this war to the American people. Had Bush been honest from the top, we would not be fighting this war in the halls of Congress, but would have the resolve to fight it where we should be: On the field. As it stands now, we have to continually battle the very ones that voted for it, instead of concentrating on the battle field itself.

We should have put it out right in the first place: we are there because Saddam created the atmosphere of terror in the first place. It wasn't about Al-Qaeda, it wasn't about Nukes, and it wasn't about his stupid little oil fields.

Had we said that up front, we might actually be winning this thing.

Then again, probably not. There are people who's hatred for Bush is so strong, that he would still be condemned no matter which course he steered us in.

Personally, I think you would be for this war if Clinton made the exact same moves for the same real reasons, or if Al Gore would have done it had he won the election in 2000.

To be honest, I would have supported them just the same in this.

Peace,

t.

[forrestkc]

Thanks, but I know better.

In fact, I was never completely convinced that he had WMD's, or was actively selling them off to other terrorist groups, either.

But, that's not why we went in. We went in because he repeatedly broke the terms of his surrender which was a result of our cease fire in the first Gulf War. He repeatedly thwarted their intentions to inspect various suspected sites, he repeatedly conducted himself in a manner which indicated that he was hiding something, and he repeatedly brought the inspectors to a point where they simply gave up in frustration, only to be smoothed over once he had a chance to clear out a site which they wanted to inspect. Every single one of those inspectors expressed their displeasure with their treatment, and continually made comments reflecting their opinions that Saddam appeared to be hiding something. It wasn't until the very last few weeks that they "changed" their minds and decided that there was, all of a sudden, a big misunderstanding about the whole thing. "Ol' Saddam, you know he's only joking" only made the scene when it was understood that we were done playing with him. Up until that point, every inspector who was delayed wa on the news letting us know that he wasn't happy, and that something needed to be done.

Now lets say that Saddam continued to try to thwart weapons inspections for the rest of his days. Lets say that he acted like he was hiding something for the rest of his days. Lets say that the inspectors would have never gotten a single warm welcome from him.

If he would have done that for another 10 maybe 20 years until the day he died, what would we have lost from the deal? It would have simply been 10 or more years just like the last 10 years or containment and inspections.

Why?

Well, here's my opinion:

The UN Inspectors, unknown to themselves, were simple idiots placed there to perpetuate a lie conceived by the UN itself, and in cooperation with the Iraqi Govt. Whether there was anything real there to see, or not, I think these people were led around the country to show that "inspections" were being carried out. I think these inspections were a lie, but most likely not known to the simple low-guy inspectors themselves.

While the inspectors frustrations were growing at the slight of hand attitude displayed by Saddam, I think they were close to finding.......something.

I'm not sure what, exactly, but I think they came close several times. I think that the leaders of these teams were brought in, eventually, and briefed by their bosses with information supplied to them from the top levels of the UN leadership.

All of a sudden, the tuned changed from one of frustration at Saddam, to one in his defense. Suddenly, seemingly overnight, all of these inspectors changed their song, and were led out of the country eventually. For some reason, that one idiot was the man picked for the PR (I can't remember his name at the moment.....it'll come to me eventually....), and off he went to tell us how stupid we were in believing that Saddam had anything to hide.

It was this same guy who, prior to his probable talking to, sang the loudest against Saddam during most of the time between the aftermath of the Gulf War, and the time just before our invasion.

Ah! I now remember his name: Scott Ritter!

This one buffoon, who made such a ridiculous speech of capitulation to the Iraqi General Assembly, is the one I was thinking of. For years, he condemned Saddam for playing his games with such high stakes in the balance, and then suddenly, he changed his tune. Why?

Anyway, I personally think that there was more to all of this than meets the eye in the general press. I think there is a lot to be discovered about the time leading up to our invasion, and I think it would justify it if the whole truth was ever released. I think it had plenty to do with back room, dirty deals between Saddam's Govt and the UN.

Other than the oil for food mess, where is the fruit of such dirty dealings on the part of Saddam and the U.N.?

Regardless, the facts remain: Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions which resulted in numerous other resolutions designed to bring him into compliance of the term spelled out following the Gulf War. His repeated disregard to these numerous resolutions created a climate of unsuredness and fear within the rest of the world. This uneasiness, which he created directly by his actions, gave enough cause, in my opinion, to warrant an invasion if he was to continue to disregard future warnings.

He did, in fact, disregard several future warnings. Even that idiot Ritter went over to plead the case for Saddam right in front of him:

http://www.c-span.org/iraq/ritter.asp

And to no avail. We even sat by while one of our own citizens made a passionate speech to Saddam to bow to the pressure and come to terms with at least some of the resolutions, and he remained defiant.

My question to you is this: How much longer would you have waited?

Half the nations on earth that have been subjected to U.N. sanctions never really complied. Their dictators stood defiant until the day they were overthrown, assassinated, or just died. Saddam could have been in violation of U.N. sanctions until the day he died, and I can

[ted]

Now lets say that Saddam continued to try to thwart weapons inspections for the rest of his days. Lets say that he acted like he was hiding something for the rest of his days. Lets say that the inspectors would have never gotten a single warm welcome from him.

If he would have done that for another 10 maybe 20 years until the day he died, what would we have lost from the deal? It would have simply been 10 or more years just like the last 10 years or containment and inspections.

Now let's say that he was hiding a lot more than what we found. Let's say that he had already aquired nuclear weapons and we were being played with for just another years or so? Let's say that he had more than what we suspected.

Who could know with his concerted effort to deny the inspectors? That's what they themselves were saying about a year before we went in, anyway.

How much longer would you have waited, if you were President Forrest?

Gotta go to work now. I'll try to get to the rest of it later tonight.

Bless you,

t.