Iran DUPED Bush into doing it's dirty work for them in bringing down Saddam.

quote:

WASHINGTON — Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials might have "been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service ... to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government," a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday.[...]

The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.

Iran, which was a mortal enemy of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq during his reign, has been the primary beneficiary of U.S. policy in Iraq, where Iranian-backed groups now run much of the government and the security forces.

Way to go George. Iran "played" you for the stupid sucker you are and now 4,000+ Americans are dead, 10's of thousands injured and you've created a black hole money pit that is sucking our country dry.

Brillant.

Worst President ever.

And what kind of thing is it that they tend to know, as opposed to the kinds of things they merely think? I wonder.

quote:

Originally posted by Splitcoil:
And what kind of thing is it that they tend to know, as opposed to the kinds of things they merely think? I wonder.

One knows indubitably verified facts. Actually, though, I'm projecting CIA onto global intel, which isn't fair. Some of them are, I assume, decent at actually gathering intel.

Thye CIA is not good at gathering intel, having been sidetracked from day one into covert ops, being made into a paramilitary outfit.

But it's still required to write reports and send them to the White House, so it... thinks.

NSA gets real intel via awesome sigint, but it stops at our relative knowledge of the cultures and backgrounds and circumstances and personalities behind those signals, which brings us back to Intel 101, which we haven't got.

Ahh, I see. So, say in the realm of clandestine intelligence collection, which will cover nearly all matters of real import, what would you consider to be 'indubitable verification'? If it cannot be opened to public debate, testing, and commentary, then surely 'indubitable verification' must be hard to come by?

And

quote:

back to Intel 101, which we haven't got.

refers to... quality HUMINT? MASINT? RUMINT?

quote:

Originally posted by oddmanrush:
Iran DUPED Bush into doing it's dirty work for them in bringing down Saddam.

quote:

WASHINGTON — Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials might have "been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service ... to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government," a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday.[...]

The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.

Iran, which was a mortal enemy of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq during his reign, has been the primary beneficiary of U.S. policy in Iraq, where Iranian-backed groups now run much of the government and the security forces.

Way to go George. Iran "played" you for the stupid sucker you are and now 4,000+ Americans are dead, 10's of thousands injured and you've created a black hole money pit that is sucking our country dry.

Brillant.

Worst President ever.

Can I still be a liberal and think some of these ideas are a little hairbrained? I don't blame the writer. They have to write something and they get paid for it. Bush did not need to be "duped" into invading Iraq. GWB was born duped.

I always wonder what would be thought now of the decision to invade if we'd left (everyone, military, state, everyone) as soon as we'd caught Saddam. Because Saddam was a major asshole who was financing terrorists and popping his neckbones was a pretty good deal.

Some would still call it a mistake. Not certain most would though. Being real, I don't think I would. I still wouldn't like Bush but I'm not sure I would have called him the worst president in history or even close. I just think we need to separate the initial invasion from the way it proceded from there... and proceeded and proceeded and is still fucking proceeding.

If we did that, maybe John Walcott would have to think of less sensational ways to interpret his data.

quote:

Some would still call it a mistake. Not certain most would though.

Well Trogdor, MOST WOULD AND DO. According to a Quinnipiac University Poll from May 08 62% of the American public feel it was WRONG to invade Iraq. That number has been steadily rising.

quote:

I still wouldn't like Bush but I'm not sure I would have called him the worst president in history or even close.

Well, as far as Bush being the worst President ever.

Poll: More disapprove of Bush than any other president

quote:

WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

George Bush, setting new records for poor job performance and incompetence.

Not only that but 61% of historians now rate Bush as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

It's a fact.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: oddmanrush,

While I certainly think W is among the worst presidents, I don't think polls are good indicators of such things. That takes distance and history. If we evaluated our presidents according to public opinion during their administrations, the very worst would have to be Thomas Jefferson, about whom nobody had a good word to say during his lifetime.

And GHWB was no fuckin' picknic.

Historians might argue over ranking, but there's no doubt Bush has been an unmitigated disaster

quote:

Historians will argue over whether George W. Bush is the worst president the United States has ever endured. But that is not the point. Five years after Bush's ill-starred invasion of Iraq, three years after Hurricane Katrina and seven months into the unravelling of the U.S. financial system, the point is that the 43rd president of the United States – regardless of his ranking in the pantheon – is a unique and unmitigated disaster. [...]

At a very basic level, Bush is incompetent. He likes to play at commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. But in any other country a commander-in-chief who orchestrated an adventure as disastrous as the Iraq war would be court-martialled.

He clearly has a native cunning that stands him well in the game of politics. But at a deeper level, there seems to be something missing – a neural disconnect in his brain that at crucial moments causes him to be divorced from the constraints of rational thought. How else to explain the abrupt turnarounds such as his 2003 decision to disband the entire Iraqi army (a decision that fuelled the subsequent insurgency) just a few weeks after agreeing that these forces should be kept intact?

In some public events, he seems fully at ease. But in others – particularly his infrequent, televised press conferences – he seems to be observing events from another dimension.

Among U.S. historians, it has become great sport to rank the country's presidents. Bush vies with many for the title of absolute worst – from Ulysses S. Grant, who oversaw a post-Civil War era so corrupt it was known as Grant's Barbecue, to Richard Nixon of Watergate fame, to Herbert Hoover, the hapless president in charge during the stock market crash of 1929.

But Grant, Hoover and even Nixon did not do as much damage worldwide. Americans may still be debating Bush's legacy. I suspect the rest of the world has made up its mind.

Yeah, and I and many others have made our minds up too... Bush, worst President ever. But then again we've seen it for years. Others seem to be still drinking the Kool-aid.

Stop drinking the kool-aid.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: oddmanrush,

quote:

Originally posted by oddmanrush:

quote:

Some would still call it a mistake. Not certain most would though.

Well Trogdor, MOST WOULD AND DO. According to a Quinnipiac University Poll from May 08 62% of the American public feel it was WRONG to invade Iraq. That number has been steadily rising.

quote:

I still wouldn't like Bush but I'm not sure I would have called him the worst president in history or even close.

Well, as far as Bush being the worst President ever.

Poll: More disapprove of Bush than any other president

quote:

WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

George Bush, setting new records for poor job performance and incompetence.

Not only that but 61% of historians now rate Bush as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

It's a fact.

*sigh*

I know all that. And I personally think he's a once-in-a-thousand-years-bad president.

I was ONLY addressing John Walcott's backward computation of weak data. The idea that Iran duped the USA into invading Iraq, based upon the information available (all the information, not just that which supports one jackass theory or another), is journalistic masturbation. In public.

Well Trogdor, I sincerely apologise. I misunderstood.

The invasion was a huge mistake and Bush is, if not the worst President ever, right up there near the top.

Bush wanted to go into Iraq before 9-11 even happened. He simply used 9-11 to DUPE the American public into going along with it and they fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Idiots.

quote:

Originally posted by oddmanrush:
Well Trogdor, I sincerely apologise. I misunderstood.

The invasion was a huge mistake and Bush is, if not the worst President ever, right up there near the top.

Bush wanted to go into Iraq before 9-11 even happened. He simply used 9-11 to DUPE the American public into going along with it and they fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Idiots.

Nothing historical is 100% true, but that's close. Lot closer than Iran having anything to do with it.

Maybe so Trogdor. Maybe so. But I submit that no one has gained more from the downfall of Saddam than the Irainians. No one. (disclaimer)

An arch enemy removed and the balance of power within Iraq shifted from Sunni to Shite dominance.

Coincidence? Simple good fortune?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Bush is the worst president people remember. Simple as that.

Also, external events or just circumstances can make a good president have a very bad presidency. Harry Truman comes to mind, with the Korea War, nuclear war and the Cold War on his hands.

I suppose this may sound heretical to many, but JFK, if he had not been killed, could have been in GWB territory, embroiled in Vietnam, almost nuclear war and supporting war ventures in Cuba.

LBJ was pretty much detested by the end of his second (first) term.

My own pick would be Buchanan, doing nothing to prevent or preempt the Secession War. Few things are worse than a Civil War.

Perspective is a wonderful thing, making what is close big, and what is far small...

quote:

Originally posted by oddmanrush:
Maybe so Trogdor. Maybe so. But I submit that no one has gained more from the downfall of Saddam than the Irainians. No one.

So. What?

That has nothing to do with their causing the USA to invade Iraq. Too easy to try to judge now, what people were thinking then. Most people in the Iranian government were probably worried that we'd invade them once we were through with Iraq.

I submit that the Bush administration gained from 9/11. Do I think they caused it?

No.

I don't. But a lot of crazy people do because they analyze correlations right into causality. My cat benefits from my dogs having to go outside to pee (gives her a chance to sneak out with them). Does my cat CAUSE my dogs to have to pee?

Coincidence? Simple good fortune?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Bullshit?

Absolutely!

Ok, Ok, don't have a freakin cow. I never said they caused it. Seeesh, take a pill. Did Bush take advantage of 9-11? Absolutely. Do your cats take advantage of your dogs going out to pee? Absolutely. Did the Iranians take advantage of what they saw Bush planing to do regarding Iraq? Absolutely. He was a easy mark. An easy and willing DUPE that they all played. Bushco was taking in any and all intel that was supporting their already pre-dertermined course of action. The Iranians helped, Chalabi helped, the kurds helped, the Israelis helped, the neocons helped, etc. Whatever helped Bush sell the scam to the American public he and his miserable band of incompetents used and ran with. The Irainians happily got in on the action and are in pretty good position as a result.

Absolutely!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: oddmanrush,

Some hypotheticals to squeeze between the cat and dog door hinge flaps:

Perhaps Iran had information that could have grossly embarrassed Bush's urge to own Iraq. I have no clue and no theory, but such things are easily possible.

Similar conjectures avail regarding Bush/911. Only freakazoids with latent Rube Goldberg disease charge that Bush Caused 911. But it is easily possible that certain persons ignored certain warnings, even that certain persons quietly took steps and made plans that would make such an event easier than not.

All of which amounts to less than piddle in a teacup. Meanwhile, what oddman says holds up very well to actual known verified historical data: those who felt they might gain from Senor Presidente's addle-pated aims on Iraq were not shy in encouraging him to do so.

I hope you have me on Ignore and use it, Trogdor, because I'ma tell you to take up duck-hunting if the itch to be an an unreasoning asshole continues to fester in you like this.

Or at least take some Tums. Maybe it's just heart burnination.

I think it's possible that people overestimate the benefits of the Iraqi nightmare to Iran.

They've got two chaotic warzones on either side of them, and they're caught in the middle of it. Helping to stabilise the situation, while profitable, is just common sense because that kind of chaos can have a nasty way of travelling, particularly if the borders connect with another community disenchanted with its leadership.

An increase in military presence in the region was never going to be in their interests (short or long). They may call the United States 'the great satan' but the Americans describe them just as negatively (possibly moreso if you're aware of the difference between Satans in the Christian and Islamic theologies).

They certainly would help the United States in Iraq, statements like "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" along with a place on the "Axis of Evil" made it pretty clear what the options were.

quote:

Originally posted by Witness:
I think it's possible that people overestimate the benefits of the Iraqi nightmare to Iran.

Maybe so Witness. The jury's still out.

However, Maliki, the PM of Iraq is currently in Tehran TALKING to the Irainians (the #1 sin in Bush world) and announced this today.

Iraqi prime minister: Iraq will not be used to 'damage' Iran

quote:

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Sunday tried to allay Iranian fears over a planned U.S.-Iraq security pact, saying his government would not allow Iraq to become a launching pad for an attack on its neighbor.

"Iraq today doesn't present any threat as it used to be in the times of the former regime," al-Maliki told Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a Sunday meeting between two leaders, according to a statement from the prime minister's office.

"Today's Iraq is a constitutional state based on the rule of law, and it seeks to develop its relations with the regional countries based on cooperation and mutual respect," al-Maliki said.

I'm not sure one can over-estimate the benefits Iran now enjoys having a Shite gov't in control of Iraq. This is but one example. All thanks to the brillance of GWB.

I guess since Iraq is talking to and helping to protect Iran, a Bush declared terrorist state, that now makes Iraq a enemy of ours. You're either with us, or you're against us. We'll have to invade and kick some butt. Oh wait. Never mind.

quote:

They've got two chaotic warzones on either side of them, and they're caught in the middle of it. Helping to stabilise the situation, while profitable, is just common sense because that kind of chaos can have a nasty way of travelling, particularly if the borders connect with another community disenchanted with its leadership.

This is very true.

A counterbalance consideration is that, early on, Iran perceived itself as a likely next target after Afghanistan (regarding which it had originally offered to help us stabilize and de-verminize).

Then Bush defined Iran, Iraq & NK as an Axis of Evil. "All hail Hydra!!!!" Israel was very much for us going into Iran and discouraged our interest in invading Iraq. Having Iraq invaded instead of Iran was, of course, seen by Iran as the better option.

Proved they were right. We got bogged down in Iraq rather than moving from Iraq to Iran to the Democratic Liberation of the Entire Solar System!!!! ALL HAIL HYDRA!!!!