[subego]

Whether "Bush lied" was being bickered around in here somewhere and I found it really frigging irritating, as likely did the participants.

So why, pray tell, did I start my own God damn thread about it?

Well, unfortunately, my party has been unable to do anything about this other than repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot, as evidenced by what irritated me in the first place. I've never had a chance to see any genuine analysis refuted because people have been too busy refuting the ridiculous argument that even though everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, Bush instead knew everyone else was mistaken and felt it was best to give himself a chronic political hemorrhage anyways. He did this intentionally rather than, say, be mistaken like everyone else.

This argument is a waste of time, and as I said above, those who refute it are likely out of patience. Before you decide your patience is lost on me do not forget that if the opposition can provide nothing more than buffoonery it leads to the complacent conclusion that since the opposition is wrong, I must be right. That no one has effectively challenged you does not mean the time for challenge has past. A reasonable argument deserves a fair hearing.

I can't see another person, buffoon or not, get smugly pounded on this issue. It's time for an argument worthy of debate. If you haven't guessed already, it'll be more than two-words long.




The lie Bush told was that he cared, and that as a people we should care.

WMDs were relevant to this invasion only insofar as Iraq was likely to have the smallest stockpile of WMDs of all our potential targets. This greatly enhanced its suitability as a target.

Rumsfeld's doctrine called for the absolute minimum deployment. This guarantees tension between combat and non-combat operations. In other words, at least in the crucial initial stages of the invasion, resources and personnel diverted to deal with WMDs reduce the effectiveness of combat units. When faced with this dilemma, good soldiers choose to overstretch themselves rather than compromise combat effectiveness.

As for the other half of the Rumsfeld doctrine causing tension in our quest for WMDs, remember "shock and awe"? The purpose of that was to destroy Saddam's command and control. It worked brilliantly. Without command and control, guess what was totally free to end up in anyone's hands had it actually been there in the first place. Our pal WMDs.

Of course, in a year of planning, no one at CENTCOM had actually assigned a team to confirm WMD sites on the ground. Luckily, the senior intelligence officer of the Land Component Command caught it in time. In response they shoved a bunch of analysts into an artillery brigade headquarters unit and hoped a month's worth of training and prep was enough.

Before you say that officer was asleep on the job, he had been working on prioritizing an unfiltered stack of 950(!) potential WMD sites. The invasion had been in the planning stages for months already and he was the first person charged with the job of determining where all these WMDs are supposed to be. Of course, "charged" is the wrong word, as no one ever asked him to do it, and he had started under the assumption that since this was the rationale for the war in the first place, someone else must have done it. A good soldier, when this turned out not to be the case he just took it upon himself to do the work.

This is the issue. We were told WMDs were a key operational objective. The fact that WMDs received almost no priority is what casts doubt upon almost every other aspect of the war.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd like to go on record as saying that if tons of WMD were found in Iraq on the first day of the war - the liberals would still be against the war.

If liberals believe it's acceptable to invade a country because of the *real* threat of WMD - then they would wholeheartedly support a war against Iran and North Korea.

I'm sorry, but I believe liberals are purely anti-American because they feel guilty for having so much wealth and freedom - while there's human sufferin' elsewhere on the globe.

edited: After being in power for 60 years, the liberals can't believe they no longer have power. Instead of blaming their ideology for their lack of voter support, they blame everything else. Voter fraud, neo-con conspiracies, etc. Their sole mission in life is to regain power.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd like to go on record as saying that if tons of WMD were found in Iraq on the first day of the war - the liberals would still be against the war.

Can't necessarily disagree here, but that seems tangental to the main issue.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If liberals believe it's acceptable to invade a country because of the *real* threat of WMD - then they would wholeheartedly support a war against Iran and North Korea.

Funny, that was the argument I was using in 2002 to say why Bush was full of it for wanting to go after WMDs.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm sorry, but I believe liberals are purely anti-American because they feel guilty for having so much wealth and freedom - while there's human sufferin' elsewhere on the globe.

edited: After being in power for 60 years, the liberals can't believe they no longer have power. Instead of blaming their ideology for their lack of voter support, they blame everything else. Voter fraud, neo-con conspiracies, etc. Their sole mission in life is to regain power.

Again, I can't disagree, but find this tangental, unless your argument is that my attempt to pursue the truth is invalidated by other people being knuckleheads.

That would strike me as a really lousy reason to not pursue the truth.

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, I guess it would have been easier to say that it doesn't really change anything whether Bush lied or not.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Well, I guess it would have been easier to say that it doesn't really change anything whether Bush lied or not.

Can I take this to mean WMDs are essentially irrelevant to you?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If liberals believe it's acceptable to invade a country because of the *real* threat of WMD - then they would wholeheartedly support a war against Iran and North Korea.

We support military action in Korea. If Iran begins to develop nuclear weapons and is still acting nutty we support military action there too. Dunno why you missed the memo.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd like to go on record as saying that if tons of WMD were found in Iraq on the first day of the war - the liberals would still be against the war.

Your opinion is so noted. My opinion is that you're wrong. I initially supported the war in Iraq because I believed the White House had confidential information supporting WMD. If we had found WMD, then I'd be supportive of our mission in Iraq today. I *wanted* to believe it (in fact, I couldn't believe we'd go in for any other reason).

Of course, that is my opinion, and like yours, it has no bearing on the facts or the truth.

If liberals believe it's acceptable to invade a country because of the *real* threat of WMD - then they would wholeheartedly support a war against Iran and North Korea.

I completely agree. Iran and North Korea (and maybe even Pakistan) are wars I would support.

I'm sorry, but I believe liberals are purely anti-American because they feel guilty for having so much wealth and freedom - while there's human sufferin' elsewhere on the globe.

You shouldn't be sorry of your own opinions; you're entitled to them and should be proud to state them. My feeling is that you are completely off base. I know many liberals, and none are anti-American. Where you got the idea that "liberals" are the party of "wealth" is beyond me.

edited: After being in power for 60 years, the liberals can't believe they no longer have power. Instead of blaming their ideology for their lack of voter support, they blame everything else. Voter fraud, neo-con conspiracies, etc. Their sole mission in life is to regain power.

Once again, your opinion, is so noted. However, it is my opinion that when it comes to conservatives, their sole mission in life is to RETAIN power, regardless of anything else (including regard for the Constitution and the freedoms that have traditionally defined what it means to be American). The anti-American conservatives have gotta go.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If liberals believe it's acceptable to invade a country because of the *real* threat of WMD - then they would wholeheartedly support a war against Iran and North Korea.

I thought that was the argument after the whole WMD crap. If we're doing it for democracy (bullsh*t) and safety (bullsh*t), then why not go into countries like North Korea and Iran? Or Saudi Arabia, you know, where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from?

The reason we invaded Iraq and not Iran and North Korea, is because there's no economic incentive. Iran is more than willing to share its oil with us and North Korea doesn't have any. So the point is moot.

This war was about securing oil reserves and making money, pure and simple. It just went to sh*t when people started to fight back and a few terrorists started taking advantage of the situation.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm saving this thread.

One day soon it's gonna prove I was right.

North Korea will indeed be attacked. And I expect nothing less than the full support and cooperation of all liberals.

heh.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm saving this thread.

And here I thought by saving the thread you meant you would actually address my arguments.

Next, please.

[Kevin]

Bush claimed Iraq was going after/had nukes. He was called a liar.

Clinton claims Iraq was going after/had nukes. No one even questioned him.

Now I get the excuse. "Well because Clinton never invaded"

Now, lets just ignore how silly that excuse is. Because a lie is a lie is a lie.

Say it was legit. It would still be irrelevant.

Bush was being called a liar WELL before the invasion.

By people who don't even know what the word means.

BTW I got a long list of Dem senators that are liars too. That approved of the invasion.

Well that is until election time. Then the "plan" came into effect.

Karma bit them on the ass though.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Clinton claims Iraq was going after/had nukes. No one even questioned him.

Am I questioning him for claiming they were there or going after them?

I started this thread because I'm tired of people questioning it.

By not responding to the points I have made, you're only adding to this issue's exasperating longevity.

[BRussell]

subego, you don't want to hear this I guess, but Bush did lie about WMDs. For example, he was told by the CIA not to say that Iraq had gone after nukes in Africa, that the intelligence didn't support that statement. So he took it out of one of his speeches. But he put it back in one of his later, and more important, speeches. There are many other examples of specific pieces of evidence that the intelligence did not support. Stuff in Powell's speech. Aluminum tubes. Shiny satellite photos. WMD vans. Flying WMD drones. That was lying. It wasn't "believing that Iraq had WMDs" like so many people did. It's manipulating the truth. It's lying.

If cop X believes that OJ is the murderer, and cop Y believes it too but also falsifies evidence under oath, those two cops are not equivalent. Only cop Y is lying.

You're right, he also didn't care about actually winning the war. But he lied about WMDs too.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

North Korea will indeed be attacked. And I expect nothing less than the full support and cooperation of all liberals.

Sure, just as long as your dumbass President doesn't have to chalk it up full of lies just to get support for it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego

Whether "Bush lied" was being bickered around in here somewhere and I found it really frigging irritating, as likely did the participants.

So why, pray tell, did I start my own God damn thread about it?

Well, unfortunately, my party has been unable to do anything about this other than repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot, as evidenced by what irritated me in the first place. I've never had a chance to see any genuine analysis refuted because people have been too busy refuting the ridiculous argument that even though everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, Bush instead knew everyone else was mistaken and felt it was best to give himself a chronic political hemorrhage anyways. He did this intentionally rather than, say, be mistaken like everyone else.

This argument is a waste of time, and as I said above, those who refute it are likely out of patience. Before you decide your patience is lost on me do not forget that if the opposition can provide nothing more than buffoonery it leads to the complacent conclusion that since the opposition is wrong, I must be right. That no one has effectively challenged you does not mean the time for challenge has past. A reasonable argument deserves a fair hearing.

I can't see another person, buffoon or not, get smugly pounded on this issue. It's time for an argument worthy of debate. If you haven't guessed already, it'll be more than two-words long.




The lie Bush told was that he cared, and that as a people we should care.

WMDs were relevant to this invasion only insofar as Iraq was likely to have the smallest stockpile of WMDs of all our potential targets. This greatly enhanced its suitability as a target.

Rumsfeld's doctrine called for the absolute minimum deployment. This guarantees tension between combat and non-combat operations. In other words, at least in the crucial initial stages of the invasion, resources and personnel diverted to deal with WMDs reduce the effectiveness of combat units. When faced with this dilemma, good soldiers choose to overstretch themselves rather than compromise combat effectiveness.

As for the other half of the Rumsfeld doctrine causing tension in our quest for WMDs, remember "shock and awe"? The purpose of that was to destroy Saddam's command and control. It worked brilliantly. Without command and control, guess what was totally free to end up in anyone's hands had it actually been there in the first place. Our pal WMDs.

Of course, in a year of planning, no one at CENTCOM had actually assigned a team to confirm WMD sites on the ground. Luckily, the senior intelligence officer of the Land Component Command caught it in time. In response they shoved a bunch of analysts into an artillery brigade headquarters unit and hoped a month's worth of training and prep was enough.

Before you say that officer was asleep on the job, he had been working on prioritizing an unfiltered stack of 950(!) potential WMD sites. The invasion had been in the planning stages for months already and he was the first person charged with the job of determining where all these WMDs are supposed to be. Of course, "charged" is the wrong word, as no one ever asked him to do it, and he had started under the assumption that since this was the rationale for the war in the first place, someone else must have done it. A good soldier, when this turned out not to be the case he just took it upon himself to do the work.

This is the issue. We were told WMDs were a key operational objective. The fact that WMDs received almost no priority is what casts doubt upon almost every other aspect of the war.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...d/#post3149514

Originally Posted by ink

Explain how invading Iraq has deterred any terrorist threat to the USA.

Safety valve. Jihadi die for Allah there, not here.

Originally Posted by ink

I can see a causal link between Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Al Quaeda training camps -- but no such link exists for Iraq.

Think about what would happen to you and your family if:

-Israel had been egged into a nuclear attack on any Arab/Muslim nation.

-Saddam had used oil as a weapon against the USA.


Why did the Congress and the Senate and President Clinton make regime change in Iraq official US policy?

The Iraq Liberation Act

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

[...]

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...ast/libera.htm

If you knew the following what would you have done?

Tell me the story about the post-Gulf War discovery and the vice president --

RICHARD CLARKE: During the course of the first Gulf War, one of the things I did at the request of the secretary of state [James Baker] was to plan for what became the U.N. Special Commission that would go into Iraq after the war and look for weapons of mass destruction. In the first few months of that commission, it was filled with American and British special forces and intelligence officers dressed up in civilian clothes and carrying the U.N. flag.

One of the early operations we planned was a raid on what was the Agricultural Ministry but we had reason to believe was actually something else. And it was a surprise. We went there, broke down doors, blew off locks, got into the sanctum sanctorum. The Iraqis immediately reacted, surrounded the facility and prevented the U.N. inspectors from getting out.

We thought that might happen, too, so we had given them satellite telephones. They translated the nuclear reports on site into English from the Arabic and read them to us over the satellite telephones. My secretary stayed up all night transcribing these reports from Baghdad. What they said, very clearly, was there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and that CIA had totally missed it; we had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility. Didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it.

We prepared this report so that when the secretary of defense [Cheney] and the secretary of state arrived in the morning, it was on their desk. I know that Dick Cheney that morning looked at that report and said, "Here's what the Iraqis themselves are saying: that there's this huge facility that was never hit during the war; that they were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and CIA didn't know it." I'm sure he said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."

So he's probably carrying that bone in his throat for eight years out of government.

There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney who comes back into office nine years later has that as one of the things burnt into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/clarke.html

It's true there were no WMD's found. But how could the Bush administration trust the peace of the world to such questionable intelligence?

Tell me, if you knew that the CIA TOTALLY missed identifying a Nuclear Weapons Production plant in Gulf War I that was a year from having a bomb, how confident would you be that Iraq didn't have WMD's, despite what the CIA told you. Despite what the Weapons Inspectors said, you know the Iraqis played games with the inspectors. You know that your intelligence was questionable.

You know that 15,000,000 Israelis could be endangered by your wrong decision.

You know that the peace of the Middle East or even the entire world could depend on your trusting that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

What would you do?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If liberals believe it's acceptable to invade a country because of the *real* threat of WMD - then they would wholeheartedly support a war against Iran and North Korea.

I don't get it. You guys let Bin Laden get away, then make up lies to justify an attack on a nonexistent threat, Iraq. Then you stand by and let North Korea and Iran both develop nuclear weapons, while doing absolutely nothing. Don't blame the liberals for your own stupid decisions.

[marden]

Originally Posted by tie

I don't get it. You guys let Bin Laden get away, then make up lies to justify an attack on a nonexistent threat, Iraq. Then you stand by and let North Korea and Iran both develop nuclear weapons, while doing absolutely nothing. Don't blame the liberals for your own stupid decisions.

What I don't get is why some of you continue to make us regurgitate intellectual nourishment for you (in the way that mother sled dogs will regurgitate food for her young pups before they are able to eat solid food) even though you have the ability to find and consume the real truth of this matter on your own.

You can easily find this information as well as we do. So why do you continually nuzzle our muzzles asking us to educate you?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd like to go on record as saying that if tons of WMD were found in Iraq on the first day of the war - the liberals would still be against the war.

If liberals believe it's acceptable to invade a country because of the *real* threat of WMD - then they would wholeheartedly support a war against Iran and North Korea.

I'm sorry, but I believe liberals are purely anti-American because they feel guilty for having so much wealth and freedom - while there's human sufferin' elsewhere on the globe.

edited: After being in power for 60 years, the liberals can't believe they no longer have power. Instead of blaming their ideology for their lack of voter support, they blame everything else. Voter fraud, neo-con conspiracies, etc. Their sole mission in life is to regain power.

Truly the republican propaganda has had a great effect on you. Threat of WMDs?...WHAT WMDs???? No one anywhere has found any. Don't you get it? They made it up, they don't exist!...


As for caring about the suffering of others. I'm sorry but no, that is not correct. Perhaps if the US 'liberated' Sudan or Somalia then that might prove something. Liberating Iraq under false pretenses...a country which so happens to have the second highest oil reserves in the world... but no, the US just did it because they cared.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Truly the republican propaganda has had a great effect on you. Threat of WMDs?...WHAT WMDs???? No one anywhere has found any. Don't you get it? They made it up, they don't exist!...


As for caring about the suffering of others. I'm sorry but no, that is not correct. Perhaps if the US 'liberated' Sudan or Somalia then that might prove something. Liberating Iraq under false pretenses...a country which so happens to have the second highest oil reserves in the world... but no, the US just did it because they cared.

Please don't act ignorant. It's called a a bluff. Does he have them or not. The threat was that he had them. A threat can exist no matter what the outcome.

Pretending you have a gun in your pocket when you rob a bank can get you a charge of ARMED robbery because the threat was there regardless of the truth. And there were more than 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 reasons for invading.

Stop playing dumb.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by marden

Stop playing dumb.

You really think the Iraqi war is about Democracy and freedom? Speaking of dumbasses...

[marden]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

You really think the Iraqi war is about Democracy and freedom? Speaking of dumbasses...

Does anything I've posted really make you think ("the Iraqi war is about Democracy and freedom") that's what I believe?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by marden

Does anything I've posted really make you think ("the Iraqi war is about Democracy and freedom") that's what I believe?

Ah, denial.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm saving this thread.

One day soon it's gonna prove I was right.

North Korea will indeed be attacked. And I expect nothing less than the full support and cooperation of all liberals.

heh.

By now, North Korea has nukes and missiles. Japan is an ally of the U.S.

Remember what happened to your economy (and, indeed, the world-wide economy) after Japan closed up just for a couple of days to lick its wounds after the great Kansai Earthquake of 1995, which cost Japan 2.5% of its GDP at the time (and almost 6,500 dead).

What do you think might happen if you were stupid enough to attack?

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell

subego, you don't want to hear this I guess, but Bush did lie about WMDs.

I'll hear anything that's making an honest stab at the truth. What follows included.

Originally Posted by BRussell

For example, he was told by the CIA not to say that Iraq had gone after nukes in Africa, that the intelligence didn't support that statement. So he took it out of one of his speeches. But he put it back in one of his later, and more important, speeches. There are many other examples of specific pieces of evidence that the intelligence did not support. Stuff in Powell's speech. Aluminum tubes. Shiny satellite photos. WMD vans. Flying WMD drones. That was lying. It wasn't "believing that Iraq had WMDs" like so many people did. It's manipulating the truth. It's lying.

If cop X believes that OJ is the murderer, and cop Y believes it too but also falsifies evidence under oath, those two cops are not equivalent. Only cop Y is lying.

I think you are taking a fairly ambiguous word (lying) and assuming everyone accepts your definition. We could agree to disagree at this point, but I think it is relevant that we are discussing politics.

The ambiguity of what "lying" means is inseparable from politics. If you choose "manipulating the truth" as your metric you will be long dead of old age before you finish handing out accusations.

You say the intelligence didn't support that Saddam went after nukes in Africa? What exactly does that mean?

Was there absolutely no evidence whatsoever? Okay. That would unequivocally be a lie.

What if there was some evidence he did, and a bunch of evidence that says he didn't? I think things get exponentially more complicated here. Politicians are essentially in marketing. Not mentioning opposing points of view is how the thing works. Is this "falsifying evidence"? If it is, I would say it's so prevalent that you're wasting your time trying to convince other people to care, especially if they're not on your side to begin with. I mean, do you intend to actually convince someone of your position? How's that working? At some point you might as well be talking just to hear yourself talk.

This is even more counter-productive when there is a related issue where in which he is unambiguously lying (i.e. caring about WMDs).

Originally Posted by BRussell

You're right, he also didn't give a sh!t about actually winning the war.

Oh no. He totally cared about this. You can't honestly think that the current situation is what he wanted? Being a cocky ****-up seems a far simpler explanation that still fits all the evidence.

I'm saying he didn't care about WMDs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Nicko

They made it up, they don't exist!...

"They" being Saddam. Saddam intentionally put forth the idea he had WMDs even though he had gotten rid of them. He was so paranoid that only a few of his closest advisors knew the truth.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...d/#post3149514

Reread my post. I'm not taking issue with there being no WMDs.

My thesis is that the military effort budgeted for dealing with Iraq's WMDs was almost non-existent. Judging by the lack of effort put into finding and securing WMDs, this threat you are convinced of is not a threat Bush et. al. are convinced of.

You can decide which bothers you more, the fact that Bush played you, or the fact that if there actually had been WMDs, the battle plan called for us to do the exact opposite of what needed to be done in that situation.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd like to go on record as saying that if tons of WMD were found in Iraq on the first day of the war - the liberals would still be against the war.

I think you're partially right here. I think liberals would have supported the war if there was actually evidence suggesting there was WMD in Iraq.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego

"They" being Saddam. Saddam intentionally put forth the idea he had WMDs even though he had gotten rid of them. He was so paranoid that only a few of his closest advisors knew the truth.

Agreed, though I was disappointed to learn that the CIA wasn't able to see through Saddam's ruse.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Agreed, though I was disappointed to learn that the CIA wasn't able to see through Saddam's ruse.

From what I understand, our (Clinton era) intelligence network in Iraq had been focused almost exclusively on maintaining air superiority. We knew where their SAMs were, and we knew about the fiber optic network connecting them, but that was about it.

Even this was focused on the "no-fly zone" in northern Iraq. Baghdad to Basrah wasn't even on our radar.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego

Reread my post. I'm not taking issue with there being no WMDs.

My thesis is that the military effort budgeted for dealing with Iraq's WMDs was almost non-existent. Judging by the lack of effort put into finding and securing WMDs, this threat you are convinced of is not a threat Bush et. al. are convinced of.

You can decide which bothers you more, the fact that Bush played you, or the fact that if there actually had been WMDs, the battle plan called for us to do the exact opposite of what needed to be done in that situation.

On what basis do you conclude the coalition's effort to find and secure WMD's were lacking?

What not everyone here wants to admit is that a legitimate threat exists when you can't 100% discount the possibility. And more than that, if you allow for the POSSIBILITY you'd have to do a series of "IF/THEN" exercises.

IF he does have them would he THEN gain something from using them?
IF he uses them what could happen THEN?

And there are several other questions you'd have to ask.

What bothers me is that so few of you are even stopping at this FACT to figure it into your considerations when any responsible leader would certainly have to do so.

And in fact Cheney and Clarke DID go through these mental exercises.

Tell me the story about the post-Gulf War discovery and the vice president --

During the course of the first Gulf War, one of the things I did at the request of the secretary of state [James Baker] was to plan for what became the U.N. Special Commission that would go into Iraq after the war and look for weapons of mass destruction. In the first few months of that commission, it was filled with American and British special forces and intelligence officers dressed up in civilian clothes and carrying the U.N. flag.

One of the early operations we planned was a raid on what was the Agricultural Ministry but we had reason to believe was actually something else. And it was a surprise. We went there, broke down doors, blew off locks, got into the sanctum sanctorum. The Iraqis immediately reacted, surrounded the facility and prevented the U.N. inspectors from getting out.

We thought that might happen, too, so we had given them satellite telephones. They translated the nuclear reports on site into English from the Arabic and read them to us over the satellite telephones. My secretary stayed up all night transcribing these reports from Baghdad. What they said, very clearly, was there was a massive nuclear weapons development program that was probably nine to 18 months away from having its first nuclear weapons detonation and that CIA had totally missed it; we had bombed everything we could bomb in Iraq, but missed an enormous nuclear weapons development facility. Didn't know it was there; never dropped one bomb on it.

We prepared this report so that when the secretary of defense [Cheney] and the secretary of state arrived in the morning, it was on their desk. I know that Dick Cheney that morning looked at that report and said, "Here's what the Iraqis themselves are saying: that there's this huge facility that was never hit during the war; that they were very close to making a nuclear bomb, and CIA didn't know it." I'm sure he said to himself, "I can never trust CIA again to tell me when a country is about to make a nuclear bomb."

So he's probably carrying that bone in his throat for eight years out of government.

There's no doubt that the Dick Cheney who comes back into office nine years later has that as one of the things burnt into his memory: that Iraq wants a nuclear weapon; Iraq was that close to getting a nuclear weapon; and CIA hadn't a clue.

FRONTLINE: the dark side: interviews: richard clarke | PBS

So, if you arrive at your conclusions without taking this into consideration your conclusions CAN'T be respected. You are applying YOUR set of limited considerations on these real people dealing with a real situation.

I have pointed this out enough times and the fact that you and others fail to mention it at all suggests you have a pre-conceived notion and are simply looking to justify your belief. If you are looking for the truth you MUST take this into consideration. THE ADMINISTRATION WAS VERY FEARFUL OF GETTING IT WRONG -- OF MISSING THE WMD'S THAT MIGHT REALLY BE THERE BUT HIDDEN -- AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO FIND THOSE WMD'S WOULD BE MUCH WORSE THAN THE DOWNSIDE OF INVASION.

Give me ONE good reason why this shouldn't be an integral part of your thinking about the decision to invade.

ONE GOOD REASON.

ANYONE.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden

What not everyone here wants to admit is that a legitimate threat exists when you can't 100% discount the possibility. And more than that, if you allow for the POSSIBILITY you'd have to do a series of "IF/THEN" exercises.

Can you 100% discount the possibility that any country might attack the US?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego

I think you are taking a fairly ambiguous word (lying) and assuming everyone accepts your definition. We could agree to disagree at this point, but I think it is relevant that we are discussing politics.

The ambiguity of what "lying" means is inseparable from politics. If you choose "manipulating the truth" as your metric you will be long dead of old age before you finish handing out accusations.

Can we agree that lying is when you say something you know not to be true? Usually what happens is that someone says Bush lied to the country to get us into the war, and someone else says "it wasn't lying, because Bush believed it and so did many others." But believing something to be generally true doesn't mean you can't be caught lying about specifics, as in the example of a cop who believes in the guilt of a suspect and so falsifies evidence to convict him.

The CIA had told the White House that the Africa-nuclear story was not supportable. The White House has admitted that, and has admitted that it shouldn't have been in the State of the Union speech. If that doesn't fit the definition of a lie, I don't know what does: They knew it wasn't true, but said it anyway.

Tenet now says that he should have objected even more strongly, so it really wasn't Bush's fault. If you're being very generous, you could call it a mistake. But you could do that with any lie. If I post on MacNN that I'm hung at 11 inches, and then someone has photographic evidence that I'm not, I can just say it was all an honest mistake. By the definitions that some people are using, there is no such thing as a lie, ever. There's always a way out. But at some point you use common sense.

I think you're right that some people aren't going to ever believe that Bush lied. That's their problem.

But let me ask you this: What would, to you, qualify as a lie about WMDs? The hypothesis that Bush told the truth has to be falsifiable, right? So what are your criteria for falsifiability here?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Can we agree that lying is when you say something you know not to be true?

What is it when you don't want to know if what you are saying is true?

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden

On what basis do you conclude the coalition's effort to find and secure WMD's were lacking?

It's the whole second half of my original post.

Originally Posted by marden

What not everyone here wants to admit is that a legitimate threat exists when you can't 100% discount the possibility.

Should I say this in all caps or something?

I am not arguing this.

I have not said one thing that could be construed as an argument against this, or anything else you have posted.

You are arguing against a point I am not making.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Can we agree that lying is when you say something you know not to be true? Usually what happens is that someone says Bush lied to the country to get us into the war, and someone else says "it wasn't lying, because Bush believed it and so did many others." But believing something to be generally true doesn't mean you can't be caught lying about specifics, as in the example of a cop who believes in the guilt of a suspect and so falsifies evidence to convict him.

The CIA had told the White House that the Africa-nuclear story was not supportable. The White House has admitted that, and has admitted that it shouldn't have been in the State of the Union speech. If that doesn't fit the definition of a lie, I don't know what does: They knew it wasn't true, but said it anyway.

Tenet now says that he should have objected even more strongly, so it really wasn't Bush's fault. If you're being very generous, you could call it a mistake. But you could do that with any lie. If I post on MacNN that I'm hung at 11 inches, and then someone has photographic evidence that I'm not, I can just say it was all an honest mistake. By the definitions that some people are using, there is no such thing as a lie, ever. There's always a way out. But at some point you use common sense.

I think you're right that some people aren't going to ever believe that Bush lied. That's their problem.

But let me ask you this: What would, to you, qualify as a lie about WMDs? The hypothesis that Bush told the truth has to be falsifiable, right? So what are your criteria for falsifiability here?

As long as you are talking about courts and rules of order and legalities then I'd have to admit you may have a point. But there is something some of us fail to recognize here.

This is a poker game with the highest of stakes and there are some things that you might not do if the issue at stake is ONLY that of a murderer going free or something, where you would have to stand on the law as your rock of gibralter. Without it you are already defeated and ethically over the line if not completely bankrupt.

However, when the stakes are the millions of lives in Israel you must err on the side of averting a global catastrophe.

Anyone who disagrees has not thought this through as one would if one were the leader of the free world. And if you say that you have thought about it and reply with righteous indignation that principles are more important than millions of lives, then I question your maturity and your sense of priorities.

[BRussell]

marden, I firmly believe, and I believe the evidence shows, that our Iraq policy has put Israel at more risk, not less. Our Iraq policy has not prevented an imminent global catastrophe, it has created more chaos. Our Iraq policy has further galvanized our enemies, not drained them of support.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But let me ask you this: What would, to you, qualify as a lie about WMDs? The hypothesis that Bush told the truth has to be falsifiable, right? So what are your criteria for falsifiability here?

As everyone seemed to believe Saddam had them despite any particular piece of evidence not holding water, my standards would be nearly impossible to meet due to the inherently grey nature of intelligence.

You keep making the cop analogy. The legal system deals with binary absolutes. Guilty and not guilty. Did someone do something or not. Intelligence is always in question. Even if all of the evidence points towards a particular fact being true that doesn't mean it is true. This is made even more so if there is conflicting intelligence.

For him to lie about this there would have to be literally no evidence pointing towards WMDs.

This would not be my standard in all cases. As I said before this must be viewed in the context of everyone believing he had them, which as I also said, as far as can be determined was Saddam's exact intent.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego

It's the whole second half of my original post.



Should I say this in all caps or something?

I am not arguing this.

I have not said one thing that could be construed as an argument against this, or anything else you have posted.

You are arguing against a point I am not making.

Are you saying that there was never any intention to find WMD's because you believe the Administration already knew they didn't exist?

And that we have proof of this because if the main point of going to Iraq was to get the WMD's why was there so little manpower devoted to finding them after the invasion was complete?

And that "shock & awe" was a convenience for the Administration which allowed them to plausibly deny the whereabouts of these fantasy WMD's once Iraqi command and control was destroyed?

And that we shouldn't classify this as yet another imaginative conspiracy theories because...?

I will point out the MONTHS of wrangling and disagreements that preceded the invasion as competing groups from the State Department and Ahmed Chalabi and the Defense Department (I believe) argued over all kinds of matters that were to take place once the objective was secured and the result was that once the invasion HAD to be launched (to avoid having major battles taking place in the hottest part of the year and our forces trapped in and trying to fight while wearing hazmat outfits). However, the plans were not debugged and there was no consensus between the two competing factions. This left many gaps in the post invasion, post major combat phase plans.

You can easily interpret these contentious arguments as the agents who were in on the Administration's ruse were trying to gum up the works and prevent a clear strategy from emerging from there deliberations. There! Some more fuel to add to your conspiracy.

I believe the Administration was trying to do too much with too little. Too little consensus. Too little hard relaible actionable intelligence. Too few troops.

And why would there be a concerted effort to keep manpower there to a minimum?

Because there has been a new school of thought which advocated the use of a lightning fast heavy firepower low on personnel fighting force instead of the traditional big, heavy, lumbering huge numbers of troops, forces which we had during WWII , for example.

And why would we want to try to make such a concept work?

Budget cuts which were part of the way the national budget was balanced came at a price. When the Pentagon and the Dept of the Army looked at how they could meet the lowered budget demands all kinds of assumptions had to be questioned.

Can we do without some of the military installations we had? Yes. Could we do without the number of active divisions and huge numbers of troops? Maybe. And that was what was behind the effort to try to make this new kind of force serve as a replacement for the old model which would have brought in a great many more soldiers to do the job.

I dunno. I can't totally dismiss your contention. There are questions in my mind. But I have seen only you among the many posters here who have tried looking at the evidence to draw your conclusions.

And even though they seem conspiracy theoresque to me so far, they can't be totally dismissed and for that you deserve a kudo and I will continue to keep an open eye and mind to your theory.

Thanks for thinking.

P.S. As for the fact that no one was assigned to look for WMD's after the troops were there, I can well understand the fog of war having something to do with that oversight. You might find it hard to believe, but I can give you an analogy which illustrates the same principle. A friend of mine worked as a cook at a Bob's Big Boys restaurant and he said one day when there was a super huge crush of customers who descended on the place after a game or something, everything was just flying and bedlam was the rule. The kitchen was divided in two functions. One side cooked steaks and chicken and seafood and the other side ONLY cooked the signature Big Boy hamberger sandwiches. During this huge dinner rush one of the cooks accidentally served up a Big Boy without any meat patties. It's the name of the restaurant. It's what the guy was there to do. He had no other duties at the time. Yet, he got it wrong.

Fog of war.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell

marden, I firmly believe, and I believe the evidence shows, that our Iraq policy has put Israel at more risk, not less. Our Iraq policy has not prevented an imminent global catastrophe, it has created more chaos. Our Iraq policy has further galvanized our enemies, not drained them of support.

Not the point.

Does what we KNEW AT THE TIME support the decision to invade?

Not what we have learned SINCE then.

The point when GWB said, "GO!" to the invasion, what did we know?

Anything we learned AFTER that point in time is irrelevant concerning whether the decisions was justified or not.

[subego]

Nm.

[DBursey]

Iraq at the time of invasion was a broken shell of a state economically, militarily and in terms of its infrastructure.

The notion of uncertainty you regard as such an important premise in attacking Iraq could've applied (and still applies) to many countries, most of which were of far greater threat than Hussein.

I believe abe once posted an acknowledgment of the whole WMD notion as being an acceptable bit of subterfuge in terms of cloaking the admin's real motivations.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden

Are you saying...

And that we have proof of this...

And that "shock & awe" was a convenience...

No, no and no.

I firmly believe that Bush believed there were WMDs. The first half of my OP addresses this. Perhaps I shouldn't have used sarcasm in that part. Let me make the point sarcasm-free.

Bush thought there were WMDs. Everyone thought there were WMDs.

Originally Posted by marden

And that we shouldn't classify this as yet another imaginative conspiracy theories because...?

Because I'm not claiming this was all an elaborate ruse to cover the fact they knew there weren't WMDs. I hope I've made it clear I believe Bush thought there were WMDs.

The ruse was telling us that WMDs were a primary military objective.

The lack of effort shows WMDs were not a primary objective.

As someone who sees the importance of WMDs as a primary military objective, I can't see why you don't have a big problem with this.

Originally Posted by marden

Thanks for thinking.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by marden

Fog of war.

Fog of pre-war

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego

As everyone seemed to believe Saddam had them despite any particular piece of evidence not holding water, my standards would be nearly impossible to meet due to the inherently grey nature of intelligence.

You keep making the cop analogy. The legal system deals with binary absolutes. Guilty and not guilty. Did someone do something or not. Intelligence is always in question. Even if all of the evidence points towards a particular fact being true that doesn't mean it is true. This is made even more so if there is conflicting intelligence.

For him to lie about this there would have to be literally no evidence pointing towards WMDs.

This would not be my standard in all cases. As I said before this must be viewed in the context of everyone believing he had them, which as I also said, as far as can be determined was Saddam's exact intent.

Well then that answers my question, and I suspect it's the underlying thinking of others who agree with you that Bush didn't lie: There is no conceivable way he could have lied, it's just not possible.

But I think the criminal analogy is apt: There's always mixed evidence. Pick me a crime in your city and I bet I could make a case against you. You had the same shoe size, the same blood type, you're the same height as the eyewitness identified. But I repeat: That fact doesn't forgive cops and prosecutors for presenting bogus evidence, as the White House has admitted the Africa-nukes claim was. Their only defense is "we thought it was real evidence." In the end, I suppose it's up to one's common sense to make a judgment of whether that's fair or believable.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego

No, no and no.

I firmly believe that Bush believed there were WMDs. The first half of my OP addresses this. Perhaps I shouldn't have used sarcasm in that part. Let me make the point sarcasm-free.

Bush thought there were WMDs. Everyone thought there were WMDs.



Because I'm not claiming this was all an elaborate ruse to cover the fact they knew there weren't WMDs. I hope I've made it clear I believe Bush thought there were WMDs.

The ruse was telling us that WMDs were a primary military objective.

The lack of effort shows WMDs were not a primary objective.

As someone who sees the importance of WMDs as a primary military objective, I can't see why you don't have a big problem with this.

You're welcome.

Fog of pre-war

I have always maintained to anyone who asked (as well as some who didn't) that we had lots of good reasons to invade and WMD's was as valid as several of those other good reasons.

The fact is that pacifists were protesting the invasion BEFORE the weapons inspectors were complete, and before the coalition forces completed the search for WMD's. Liberals were protesting the war despite:

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.
-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
-Any possible danger to Israel.
-Any possible impact on world peace
-How our oil access would be affected.
-How global leaders would react to our actions.
-Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
-The crumbling containment.
-The US Iraq Liberation Act.
-The multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
-The need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
-The need to give the global terrorists a convenient battle ground other than America.
-The need to create stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
-The cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
-Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

I borrowed this from another thread but from these listed points I think you can glean the reasons I'm speaking of. If you can't I'll re-write them.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by marden

Not the point.

Does what we KNEW AT THE TIME support the decision to invade?

Not what we have learned SINCE then.

The point when GWB said, "GO!" to the invasion, what did we know?

Anything we learned AFTER that point in time is irrelevant concerning whether the decisions was justified or not.

I think plenty of people knew it was a terrible idea. Many of them were unhinged leftist terrorist-appeasing Bush-haters like Michael Moore and Howard Dean, but many were people like Brent Scowcroft: read his pre-war op-ed, it's quite prescient.

Our pre-eminent security priority -- underscored repeatedly by the president -- is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.

The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism.

Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region.

Iraq is a distraction from the issues that hit us on 9/11. A distraction. It jeopardized our strategy. People knew this before the war.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Well then that answers my question, and I suspect it's the underlying thinking of others who agree with you that Bush didn't lie: There is no conceivable way he could have lied, it's just not possible.

But I think the criminal analogy is apt: There's always mixed evidence. Pick me a crime in your city and I bet I could make a case against you. You had the same shoe size, the same blood type, you're the same height as the eyewitness identified. But I repeat: That fact doesn't forgive cops and prosecutors for presenting bogus evidence, as the White House has admitted the Africa-nukes claim was. Their only defense is "we thought it was real evidence." In the end, I suppose it's up to one's common sense to make a judgment of whether that's fair or believable.

To me the question would be this:

"Was there an overwhelmingly good reason to have invaded? Was that reason so important that it would justify ANY subterfuge?"

In my mind the answer is absolutely yes. A thousand times, yes. I'd do it again even if I knew we'd have the exact same results we currently have, yes!

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I think plenty of people knew it was a terrible idea. Many of them were unhinged leftist terrorist-appeasing Bush-haters like Michael Moore and Howard Dean, but many were people like Brent Scowcroft: read his pre-war op-ed, it's quite prescient.

Iraq is a distraction from the issues that hit us on 9/11. A distraction. It jeopardized our strategy. People knew this before the war.

I'm going to start a new thread on Oil & Israel.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by marden

I'm going to start a new thread on Oil & Israel.

Awesome!

[marden]

Scowcroft fails to mention that Iraq regime change was our official national policy since 1998.

"That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them."

Yet, we know he did send money to martyr families and he did have several INTENTIONALLY off the record meetings and communiques and arrangements with jihadi. And as far as incentive to make common cause, how about having the same kind of relationship with al Qaeda as Iran has with Hezbollah?

He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail -- much less their actual use -- would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S.

He would do it so that no one would know he was doing it (it looks like it worked on Mr. Scowcroft!). If he was able to deny everthing the world would think any reprisals on him for WMD's he gave to al Qaeda were just the US picking on him unfairly.

Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs.

That doesn't explain all his anti US actions including trying to "hit" GHWB & family!

The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

Once again underscoring the fact that we didn't know for sure if he had WMD's.

Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.

Which is what I've been saying all along. And why wouldn't he have done this even without our invading?

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

So where would the WoT Scowcroft says an Iraq invasion would be taking us away from be going on?

If the WoT is not being fought in Iraq where is it being fought?

Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

If Hamas says they won't negotiate and the only solution to the Pal/Israeli situation is defeat of the Israelis, then someone explain to me how this isn't an example of Scowcroft pussyfooting around saying that Israel should be sacrificed to create a solution?

Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.

Yup. That's what he's saying. Peace in the Israeli/Palestinian crisis will come from Israel sacrificing ever more to achieve peace and the Palestinaians taking advantage of those concessetions.

If we are truly serious about the war on terrorism, it must remain our top priority. However, should Saddam Hussein be found to be clearly implicated in the events of Sept. 11, that could make him a key counterterrorist target, rather than a competing priority, and significantly shift world opinion toward support for regime change.

In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq -- any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.

We now know how silly this suggestion is. Saddam was TRYING to make it look like he had WMD's. He would NEVER have given full disclosure to UN inspectors, just as he didn't do so leading up to the invasion.

In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counterterrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests -- including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world.

We are not impressed with Mr. Scowcroft.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Can you 100% discount the possibility that any country might attack the US?

One of the intelligent IF/THEN exercises would include looking at the reasons why a leader would or would not do or not do a thing and the likelihood of his doing his thing or not.