Book Says White House Ordered Forgery

I see you repeating that. it would be interesting for you to provide sources and evidence.

 

Almost eight years now and what have we accomplished in Afghanistan?

"Also, have you seen any indication that the Bush administration intends to keep its promises and establish security, rebuild the country's infrastructure, spread democracy, remove the warlords, liberate women, and "modernize" Afghanistan or was that all just a public relations smokescreen to promote the invasion? "

 

According to .....? Evidence and source please.

 

Sorry, but according to the following research this statement simply not true.

18,000 US Forces in Afghanistan as of October 2001 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

Following the 2001 ouster of the Taliban, the U.S. had fewer than 10,000 troops were in Afghanistan. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349748,00.html

NATO assumed control of all forces in 2003. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

As of July 9, 2004 US Troop strength in Afghanistan was at 17, 900 and expected to hold steady. Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040709-afghan-presence.htm

As of December 27, 2005 US military said the number of its troops in Afghanistan would be reduced 'very soon' by 2,500. Source: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5072632/NUMBER-OF-US-TROOPS-IN.html

As of May 13, 2006 additional NATO forces move in, and the US military plans to reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan from 23,000 to 16,500. Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/afgh-m13.shtml

By May 2008 there were approximately 47, 000 total NATO Forces with the US providing about 17,000 troops. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Based on the above numbers I don’t see where, or how, the US supposedly pulled half of its troops out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq. Our troop strength in Afghanistan has remained in the neighborhood of 15,000 to 18,000.

 

I doubt the President was going to negotiate with Talban regardless. Surely you have a reliable source instead of wiki for this.

 

Um, the post says: By May 2008 there were approximately 47, 000 total NATO Forces with the US providing about 17,000 troops. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

By my math, the difference between 18,000 and 17,000 is nowhere near half. Could you show your work as to how you got half?

2001 was two years before Iraq, and after Iraq in 2004 this says there were 17,900, which again by my math doesn't seem to be close to "half" of 18,000.

 

Look at the dates for the above two references. They are both in 2001. We did not go back into Iraq until March 2003. Why would we draw down troops in Afghanistan in 2001 two years before going back into Iraq. Sorry the better explanation for the that troop draw down is that it was based on advice from the Generals on the ground in Afghanistan. The Taliban had been defeated and al Qaeda was hurt bad and on the run. Things looked really good at that point. Then the surviving Taliban hid out through the winter and quietly recruited new soldiers for an insurgency the following summer (2002). When that happened we ramped up our troop numbers in Afghanistan to meet the new challenge. So your theory here does not hold up.

Granted we made a mistake in thinking they were completely beaten instead of just being underground.

I don't think he "declared victory." I think what he said to the troops on that specific aircraft carrier, who were headed back home to Norfolk, VA was, "Mission accomplished." It was proper to say that to them. Their mission was accomplished and they were headed back home.

That was simply a tactic the Taliban tried in order to get the bombing stopped. What third country was willing to take bin Laden off their hands? I don't recall any nation jumping up down saying, "send him to us." Likewise, there is no need for a trial regarding bin Laden. He has personally admitted that he was behind 9/11. He talked about how the buildings falling down exceeded his expectations. He talked about how his engineering background enabled him to come up with the plan for flying fuel laden jumbo jets into the buildings for maximum effect etc.

What do you think could possibly come out in a trial of bin Laden that the President would not want to be known? What truth could bin Laden reveal that would be "too risky"?

 

Fuzzy math is putting it mildly. :laugh:

 

One more time...

Iraq broke the 1991 Cease-fire Agreement. President Bush took steps to bring that nation back into compliance according to the terms of the 1991 agreement. Likewise, go back a listen to the speechs the President gave after 9/11. He said that if we found any nation to be a state supporter or sponsor of terrorists we would be coming for them as part of the global war on terror. In addition to Saddam's Iraq breaking the 1991 Cease-fire Agreement it was also a documented state supporter and sponsor of terrorists (see the articles I have linked in this thread for evidence and sources).

 

First, the government of Sudan offered the Clinton Administration bin Laden with his head on a platter so to speak. The Clinton Administration failed to take action on the offer. Second, did I or anyone in this discussion ever claim that Iraq was directly linked to 9/11? I don't think so. What I did say was:

You are arguing against a premise that I never espoused, which is another informal fallacy called non-sequitur, meaning "it does not follow."

The non-sequitur fallacy you are expressing is the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. You are trying to make it appear that 1)After 9/11 the US declared war on state supporters and sponsors of international terrorists; 2) The US went to war in Iraq; 3)Therefore, there must be a direct connection between Iraqi terrorists and 9/11. This is a false syllogism because while the President did indeed make speeches about us coming after nations who were acting as state supporters and sponsors of international terrorists, he did not limit that declaration to solely be against the supporters and sponsors of the 9/11 terrorists. His declaration was on state supporters and sponsors of international terrorists in general. Source: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm

We did not show preferential treatment "to the homeland of the hijackers." That is a simply foolish and untrue statement. The better question for you to ask, in light of the policy that President Bush outlined following 9/11 is, "In what nation did the 9/11 hijackers receive their training for the terrorist attack?" Or, "Which nation, if any, provided support or sponsorship for the 9/11 terrorists?"

Likewise, since when do we (the US) hold a group of family members guilty for the actions of one of their other family members? Your argument here makes no sense. You have set up a straw man type argument that over simplifies the facts of the events in an attempt to make it look easy to prove the US did something wrong by returning to a state of hostilities in Iraq (which is another informal fallacy). Source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

 

Washington D.C., August 22, 2008 - The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq, according to a documents posting on the Web today by National Security Archive senior fellow John Prados.​

The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the "White Paper" ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.

A similar comparison between a declassified draft and the final version of the British government's "White Paper" on Iraq weapons of mass destruction adds to evidence that the two nations colluded in the effort to build public support for the invasion of Iraq. Dr. Prados concludes that the new evidence tends to support charges raised by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its long-delayed June 2008 "Phase II" report on politicization of intelligence.

<snip>

The preparation of white papers on both the United States and British sides also needs to be taken into account. That Bush and Blair each turned to their intelligence agencies for the papers is significant—they were evoking the imprimatur of secret intelligence to justify policy preferences. Both papers had the function of justification, not analysis, and neither government waited until it had compiled all the evidence before demanding these products. Neither government asked for intelligence estimates, fashioned in secret, in order to inform policy on Iraq. Instead, both Bush and Blair did want their intelligence agencies to carry out avowed political agendas. And the timing of the white paper drafts—now established as being in the summer of 2002, before there ever was a UN debate or a Security Council resolution—clearly indicates their true function. The accumulating weight of evidence currently supports the interpretation Scott McClellan gives, not that supplied by apologists for the Iraq war.

SOURCE...

The evidence just keeps piling up. We were Neo-Conned. How many times can the Bushters adjust their blinders to avoid seeing that their fascist heros lied too and manipulated us all? As many times as needed I reckon.

Will we get another Sieg Heil (hail to victory) from the Bushters now?

 

Only one problem. Saddam's Iraq broke the 1991 Cease-fire Agreement betwwen the US and Iraq as early as 1993 and continued to fail to comply all the way up until March 2003. When Iraq broke the Cease-fire Agreement the clock started the countdown until the day came that the US would take action to bring Iraq back into compliance. The justification for returning to a state of hostilities does not depend on the date of the white papers, the NIE, or the UNSC resolutions. The justification for a return to hostilities is directly tied to the 1991 US/Iraq Cease-fire Agreement. The President made his case to Congress and the US Congress passed a resolution giving the Commander-in-Chief authority to use the US military to return to a state of Hostilities between the US and Iraq.

 

You know, the real problem I have with all this...What is a global war on terror? There is never a decisive moment when we can declare victory. It is a war, that has no end, a war that cannot be won. Who is our enemy? Anyone they label as a terrorist. Who determines who are terrorists? Several hundred years ago, the British could have determined my forefathers to be terrorists, and a little while later Mexico could have determined the same. They were not terrorists, they were freedom fighters, they are my heroes. Where is the Field of Battle? Where ever they want it to be, by labeling someone a terrorist. This is an ambiguous war, a perpetual war from whence our soldiers cannot return home victorious.

 

Nothing ambiguous about 911. Nothing ambiguous about the attack on the Cole. Nothing ambiguous about the lves lost at the Marine Barracks in Beruit.

Nothing ambiguous about the fact that extreme Islamists have declared war on America.

Making comparison between our fore Fathers and the people that strap exploding vests on mentally challenged people is a sick disgusting mentality that should seek counseling.

Comparing the Our Fore Fathers with common thug terrorists who kill their own people and who's sole contention is the existence of Israel is a distortion and suspension of reality.

 

Revmitchell, you just missed the whole point I was trying to make. If we are going to declare war, then declare it on something real, get the job done, and come home victorious. A global war on terror is ambiguous. Terror will always exist in some form or another, we can never win, there will never be a decisive moment when we can declare victory over terrorism. That is demoralizing and dishonoring to the soldiers who lay their lives on the line.

 

First... I did not miss the comparison you made of our forefathers to terrorists. You need to quit listening to the twisted talking points of the left and get some help.

Terror, murder, sin, destruction etc will always exist. But that doesnt mean we ignore it. And you do not have a clue what is dishonoring to the troops. Especailly after false comparison between our founding fathers and terrorists. Maybe tiy should actaully research what terrorists do.