• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

Except that the WMD case was "thin", in the words of British Intelligence:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Downing Street Memo was written in July of 2002, almost eight months before the invasion. Eight months prior, and the Brits already knew that Bush had made up his mind to invade no matter what.

For some people, all it takes to spin a narrative is one memo. All other evidence is ignored, and one sliver of a comment made by someone one time becomes their support for a conspiracy theory. CTs often rely on a few sentences or an "eye witness", perhaps a comment by an ambassador somewhere along the way.

But the mountain of evidence showing otherwise? Ignored.

The Iraq War as a conspiracy is no different than "hologram planes".
 
Except that the WMD case was "thin", in the words of British Intelligence:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Downing Street Memo was written in July of 2002, almost eight months before the invasion. Eight months prior, and the Brits already knew that Bush had made up his mind to invade no matter what.

Thats strange, because Democrats back in the 90s were all over Saddam Hussein and his efforts to build up his WMD program.

Was the "intelligence " false back in 1998 ?

And did Bush feed Clinton and Madeline Albright that sketchy Intelligence ?
 
For some people, all it takes to spin a narrative is one memo. All other evidence is ignored, and one sliver of a comment made by someone one time becomes their support for a conspiracy theory. CTs often rely on a few sentences or an "eye witness", perhaps a comment by an ambassador somewhere along the way.

But the mountain of evidence showing otherwise? Ignored.

The Iraq War as a conspiracy is no different than "hologram planes".

Wait just one minute !!!

Hologram planes are REAL !

Wonder Woman had one......or was it a invisible plane ?
 
Wait just one minute !!!

Hologram planes are REAL !

Wonder Woman had one......or was it a invisible plane ?

It's a Truther theory.
 
Dude. Do you not have a life away from the computer? I don't know - maybe you do, maybe you don't. I do...and I make no crude assumptions about other people.

You should learn to refrain from making assumptions about people - that's how prejudice takes hold.

Now, as to your claim that he renounced his citizenship. It took about ten minutes of scrolling through each and every page and I found it back in comment #327 (IIRC)...where it referenced this article. You saw the parts where he apparently left a note...but did you read ALL of the article?

Apparently not, because the article also said this:

The New York Times was also told by officials that the soldier left behind a note spelling out his disenchantment and his desire to walk away to start a new life.
But there are conflicting reports as other US army officials who have read the original classified 2010 investigation report into his case said the document did not refer to a note.


Do you believe in the AMERICAN judicial tradition of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? Do you? Do you really? Because you have shown that you were ABSOLUTELY SURE that he had renounced his citizenship...but now, using the SAME article you used as 'proof', we can see that there may very well be reasonable doubt.

Bergdahl obviously wasn't liked by his unit for whatever reason. Was that alleged - ALLEGED - note written by Bergdahl himself? Or was it placed there by people in his unit who were ticked off at him? We don't know. YOU don't know.

And the most pertinent paragraph of all in that entire article you referenced is this one:

“There have been several looks into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance but we’ve never publicly said anything, primarily because we haven’t had a chance to speak to Sgt Bergdahl himself,” Col Warren said.

"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." There's a reason for that judicial tradition, and that Army colonel just gave another example of upholding that tradition. Bergdahl might be as guilty as sin and if so, he will richly deserve what's coming to him. But - according to AMERICAN judicial tradition, he is at this moment INNOCENT and will remain INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law.

So...NO, you did not 'prove' that Bergdahl renounced his citizenship. All you did was go on your assumptions.

Yes, conflicting reports coming from "officials" that's senior leadership....responsible to Obama. Do you understand the military officer/President relationship? I'll take the word of his fellow soldiers over the brass and wh any day.

Didn't you say you were in the military?

BTW, what do you expect Berghdal to say? Something like..."No, I didn't desert. I was looking for a 7/11 without my weapon...in one of the most dangerous spots in Afghanistan..."

Gimme a break, bro. At some point you have to move beyond partisanship...like when it gets this stupid.
 
Last edited:
Really? Where was the clear and present danger that Iraq posed to America? Especially since they were NOT allied with al-Qaeda?

Flagrant violation of a decades worth of UN mandates, to start. :shrug:
 
Except that the WMD case was "thin", in the words of British Intelligence:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Downing Street Memo was written in July of 2002, almost eight months before the invasion. Eight months prior, and the Brits already knew that Bush had made up his mind to invade no matter what.

Tony Blair was for attacking Iraq during the Clinton Administration and joined in with George Bush as well. So did many other American allies also.

Do you think Barrack Obama would ever get any international backing? The silliness of the 'reset' button, and its complete misinterpretation, is all you need know about the foreign policy of both Obama and Clinton.

And, by the way, did you ever discover what Obama meant when he told Putin's aide that he could be 'more flexible' after the election? Or has the flexibility already shown itself?
 
Wow !

So those were Holograms ??

Lol....ok

That's at about the same level as claiming a single sentence, of OPINION, stated once, is proof that Iraq was a conspiracy - against mountains of evidence otherwise.
 
Every intelligence agency in the Western world agreed with the assessment because Saddam was, as it turns out, faking a wmd program to keep the Iranian regime at bay.

But you'll ignore that, right?

Do you still really believe that fairy tale?

Yes, we have the government we deserve. :(
 
Except that the WMD case was "thin", in the words of British Intelligence:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Downing Street Memo was written in July of 2002, almost eight months before the invasion. Eight months prior, and the Brits already knew that Bush had made up his mind to invade no matter what.

The Brits and many americans, including Dubya's first Sec Treasury, O'Neill.
 
And they presented a clear and present danger to America how? They didn't.

Then you must be fully against Obama's Libya invasion where Gaddafi was killed right?

Can you show me where in the latest War Powers Act, where "clear and present danger" is measure required for military action?
 
Back to Bergdahl, I've been listening to Sec/Def Hagel. His only justification for the way this was handled was that there simply could not be a chance of any leaked information. That's a rather insulting rationale for not informing key members of both houses.
 
Yes, conflicting reports coming from "officials" that's senior leadership....responsible to Obama. Do you understand the military officer/President relationship? I'll take the word of his fellow soldiers over the brass and wh any day.

Didn't you say you were in the military?

BTW, what do you expect Berghdal to say? Something like..."No, I didn't desert. I was looking for a 7/11 without my weapon...in one of the most dangerous spots in Afghanistan..."

Gimme a break, bro. At some point you have to move beyond partisanship...like when it gets this stupid.

Yes, I was in the military. I was for a time the Chief Master-at-Arms - equivalent to the shipboard chief of police. I was also assistant legal officer for a time on the same ship. And I know that it is wrong in both the military and civilian worlds to declare someone guilty without first giving them a trial. They are ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty. You can catch the scumbag and know in your heart of hearts that he's guilty, but you cannot allow yourself to proceed as if he's guilty - you MUST proceed with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. That's in the military AND civilian worlds, guy.

And that's precisely what that colonel meant. If you've a clue about the military, you'd know that matters like this cannot be decided by what relatively junior enlisted say to the media (one of which, btw, received an other-than-honorable discharge). Why, because false accusations occur. Was he threatened? Was he pressured to leave? WE DO NOT KNOW.

Again, guy, do you believe in the American tradition of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
 
Back to Bergdahl, I've been listening to Sec/Def Hagel. His only justification for the way this was handled was that there simply could not be a chance of any leaked information. That's a rather insulting rationale for not informing key members of both houses.

In the past there have been tons of leaks from congressional committees, the leaks used for political purposes. Now I am not talking about a couple to even a few congressional leaders here. I am talking about whole committees and their staffers. A phone call informing Pelosi, Boehner, Reid and McConnell, only those 4 with a request of only notifying the pertinent committee heads and no one else, no staffers at all, probably no leaks would have occurred.

Any more people than that, I am sure leaks would have abounded.
 
Have there been leaks from key congressional members or from their committees or subcommittees such as the Senate's Intelligence subcommittee? Were there leaks when bin Laden was purportedly captured and killed? Not rhetorical questions; I don't know. And the reason I ask is that I can't see a legitimate reason not to trust key members of both Houses, even if we're talking about only 2-3 people and to make this decision unilaterally.
 
Do you still really believe that fairy tale?

Asks a Truther. If that isn't irony, I dunno what is.

My claim is backed by facts and statements from Saddam himself.


Yes, we have the government we deserve.

I can't believe a Truther would take a shot at me like that. Sometimes internet debate seems like a total waste. I wonder if I'd be better off buying a few cats.
 
Last edited:
Asks a Truther. If that isn't irony, I dunno what is.

My claim is backed by facts and statements from Saddam himself.

I can't believe a Truther would take a shot at me like that. Sometimes internet debate seems like a total waste. At times like this, it seems I'd be better off buying a few cats.

Don't waste the money; adopt!
 
Don't waste the money; adopt!

I'm thinking 10-15 cats, a few prescriptions and random pills from the homeless guy in the Walmart parking lot, and I too could claim "special knowledge" through conspiracy theory and look down on everyone.
 
Then you must be fully against Obama's Libya invasion where Gaddafi was killed right?

Can you show me where in the latest War Powers Act, where "clear and present danger" is measure required for military action?

We invaded Libya?

I'm sure that's news to our armed forces, since not a single one of them set foot in Libya.
 
We invaded Libya?

I'm sure that's news to our armed forces, since not a single one of them set foot in Libya.

Wrong. The CIA were all over Libya in 2011. You might have heard of it - it was on all the news stations. And get this.... <looks side to side> Gaddafi actually was killed. It's true.
 
And they presented a clear and present danger to America how? They didn't.

They fired on Coalition Aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, they attempted assassination of a US President, denied access to weapons inspectors, etc etc. Regardless, a "clear and present danger" is far from required....though Saddam was clearly a threat.
 
Yes, I was in the military. I was for a time the Chief Master-at-Arms - equivalent to the shipboard chief of police. I was also assistant legal officer for a time on the same ship. And I know that it is wrong in both the military and civilian worlds to declare someone guilty without first giving them a trial. They are ALWAYS innocent until proven guilty. You can catch the scumbag and know in your heart of hearts that he's guilty, but you cannot allow yourself to proceed as if he's guilty - you MUST proceed with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. That's in the military AND civilian worlds, guy.

I am a retired Senior Chief. I am not declaring him guilty. I am saying he's a deserter, and should go to trial, guy. :shrug: In the meantime, guy, the US president traded 5 generals for 1 private...a deserter...before the cessation of hostilities. That is aiding and abetting the enemy, guy.

And that's precisely what that colonel meant. If you've a clue about the military, you'd know that matters like this cannot be decided by what relatively junior enlisted say to the media (one of which, btw, received an other-than-honorable discharge). Why, because false accusations occur. Was he threatened? Was he pressured to leave? WE DO NOT KNOW.

Again, guy, do you believe in the American tradition of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Listen, guy, this isn't a court of law, guy, this is a debate forum, guy, and the colonel, guy, is towing the party line, guy, because his future is directly tied to the presidents feelings, guy. Those junior enlisted personnel actually served with him, guy, actually know him, guy, I trust them far more than that colonel.....guy.
 
Wrong. The CIA were all over Libya in 2011. You might have heard of it - it was on all the news stations. And get this.... <looks side to side> Gaddafi actually was killed. It's true.

Last I recall, having CIA agents in a nation does NOT equate to an invasion of that nation. If it did, then we invaded Russia (and before, when it was the Soviet Union) and China and Iran and India and Saudi Arabia and Thailand and....

"Boots on the ground" doesn't apply to CIA agents. To claim otherwise doesn't reflect well on you in front of the other veterans here.
 
Back
Top Bottom