Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job' - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-27-2004, 12:06 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Try copying these URLs into your browser, Sting. That ought to work even if you're not able to access links at the moment.

Code:
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_rice.htm
Code:
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_cheney.htm
Code:
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp
Thanks for the suggestion, I was able to read them. I did not see anything I had not seen before though. No smoking gun in regards to a lie by the administration. Oh, and intelligence experts are always divided in regards to questions of the possession or non-possession of hard to detect items such as WMD. Thats why the central case for military action was not these cherry picked statements but Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per multiple United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 01:01 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:17 AM
go reread this thread.

http://forum.interference.com/showth...0&pagenumber=1

lol at "hard to detect items such as WMD" when rumsfeld showed them to all the world when he was making his famous speech, all maps and photos and stuff, and until now no WMDs found.

so the U.S. administration is not only responsible of breaching international law, fucking up diplomatic relations all over the western hemisphere, of letting hundreds of Americans die, of betraying good American Conservatives like Dreadsox, of killing thousands of Iraqis calling it civilian casualities, ah, well, iīm tired of compiling that list.

most of the Americans know that itīs time for a change. they know that their leaders have betryed them, and that their country needs a change in foreign politics - who cares if a con or a lib prez. just give me one less ill-minded. one who cares for lives. one who protects his country - which Bush didnīt. Bush still is not able of protecting the lives of Americans. Donīt forget that. The administration canīt guarantee you that tomorrow you wonīt die for a fucking bomb by another Timothy Mc Veigh.

I said it 2 years ago and it just plain looks as if terrorism is still alive and well. So Iīve been proven right - you just canīt get rid of terrorists by fighting war against a country. Maybe able to get rid of dicators and kill a few journalists in Bagdad hotels, fine. Take a look at the chaos now..

But terrorists? Nah. I donīt think the wave of terrorism will be stopped. Not with increased security on airports, not with video cameras in every damn street, not by your neighbors dog, not by the U.S. army. Because terrorists donīt give a fuck.

Thatīs sad enough.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 01:16 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:17 AM
hiphop, I think you are basically right. There's really no way to stop terrorism, unfortunately. It's like trying to stop crime. You can try to do something about it, but it's too utopian to think you can wipe it out. As long as there are places like Aghanistan or Pakistan, where terrorist operatives can wave paychecks in the faces of impoverished people, who are meanwhile sending their kids to a Wahhabist madrassa, we're going to have terrorists. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I can't think of a way we can stop this .
DISCLAIMER:I'm in a crummy mood due to a painful elbow injury and I'm really nervous about my Monday morning doctor's app't.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 02:12 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 03:17 AM
sigh

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


It is well known that the Clinton administration was deeply involved in attempting to roll back Al Quada. The Bush administration was adopting a strategy that would go for elimination. Clarke was even recorded as saying this back at the time.

Kay found over 300 items that were violations of 1441 in regards to the production and storage facilities for WMD. Kay said he had not found WMD, but had found plenty of WMD related equipment that were violations of 1441. Dr. Kay also supports the coalitions decision to invade Iraq and insure the disarmament of Saddam since all other means to do that had failed.

O'Niel was essentially fired and obviously has hard feelings. O'Niel's job was also the economy, not national security.

Clarke's own statements from the time period in question contradict his statements and views today.


The war was fought to insure the disarmament of Saddam because all other means to do that had failed.

The US Army 3rd Infantry Division, the 1st Marine MEF and the 1st British Armored Division that fought the war were not divereted from any operations against terrorism because they were never involved in any operations against terrorist. So this idea that there was diversion simply does not stand up to careful scrutiny.


#1 Saddam did not use WMD in the first Gulf War.

#2 Saddam would be unable to use any WMD he had because he was attempting to conceal any WMD or WMD related material from UN inspectors who were in the country up to 24 hours just before the start of the war. Careful burial of such materials would make it impossible to extract it and reconstitute it for use on the battlefield in the given time frame.

#3 Iraq is the size of Texas. If Saddam carefully dispersed and buried such material, it would be likely that it would not be found for a thousand years if ever. It was Saddam's responsibility to account for such material and show its remains or hand over any intact WMD. He never did either.

Clinton may have lied about a personal affair, but the Bush Administration has yet to lie about anything.

Thousands of members of Al Quada have been killed or captured and two countries have been liberated from two of the worst regimes in history. The stability and security of a majority of the Planets energy supply has never been this good with Saddam now removed.

The United States removed the Taliban regime because it they were protecting Al Quada and in fact operating with them. The United States and other member States of the United Nations removed Saddam from power with military force as authorized by 3 different UN resolutions after his violations of 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.
Good points hiphop.

Bush only went after Al Qaeda after 9/11.

"We were all wrong, probably."
No, they did not talk about equipment or "programs" to make WMDs, but they said Iraq HAD WMDs and was an imminent threat and had to be dealt with ASAP - remember the Powell speech in UN?
BOTH has yet to be verified by US/Britain since they made that claim, yet we had people like Kay or Scott Ritter (the last name may be wrong, the chief US weapons inspector before the UN inspectors left Iraw in '98) and several other knowledgeable people say Iraq was not a threat, had NO nuclear weapons (because their nuclear weapon programme was in fact destroyed before '98), all they MIGHT have had was biological/chemical weapons, nothing sufficient to pose a threat to US or the world, not even their neighbours.
I'm guessing both UN inspectors and the later US investigators knew what they're doing and where to look (with today's technology and advanced intelligence).

Not true, but nevermind. People have offerend plenty of evindence against Bush's administration claims. (there's other stuff they did besides Iraq but let's not go there...)

AFAK, Iraqui people still don't have the oil supply back on pre-war level. Along with high unemployment, bombings and humiliating raids and lack of electricity supply, it is clear US were/are not prepared enough for the "day after".
The amount of opium in Afghanistan actually rose up, and taliban/Al Qaeda members preventive action was only effectively achieved in the area around the capital city.

If it was really about WMDs, then how come that Saddam and his sons and most trusted members of the regime got the offer to leave the country and prevent the war from US?

As for opposing the administration, just think what happened to US ambassador Wilson (I think that's his name) who said Iraq was not buying uranium in Niger. A member of White house revealed his wife as a CIA agent.
No problem speaking out right?

By the way, why is the president advisor Condoleeza Rice not on the stand with 9/11 commission? I heard she's very keen on appearing in TV shows of all sorts...and if they check up Clarke's testimony, let's also reveal Bush's and everyone elses - one hour testimony? how much valuable info could the comission possibly have gotten?.
(and what do you mean Bush had greater service? He's been in the office 3+years while Clarke served under several presidents. and didn't Rice also get on board with Bush?)
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 02:25 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Marie Clare
WE know 9/11 took ten years of planning, most of which took place under a president who bent over backwards to be neutral.

If the bush admin had okayed a Bin Laden assasination there would have been an international public outcry. Human rights groups would have been jumping over each other to condemn an unjust brutal regime that has the audacity to 'preemptively' kill 'potential' terrorists.

Of course those in the know were aware of a potential threat, but preventing such a threat is not easy, especially when the world is watching you. 9/11 was not preventable, especially not by a newly appointed admin who came to power after plans for the attacks were completed.

Iraq did not have WMD, but Iraq did have a brutal regime that the majority of Iraqis have shown (in a number of polls) approval of the regimes disposal. The majority of Iraqis are glad America came. Does this justify the money and lives spent? That depends on your sympathy for the Iraqis.

Of course, one must remember if the US had not gone to war, the sanctions that kept Iraq's ruling baath party in check would have been dropped.
I think all administrations, including way back to Bush sr. and Reagan (the Afghanistan operations with the taliban that had Bin Laden involved started in the 80's) share some of the blame. However current's administration obviously more so than others since it happened on their watch.

Fair trial, innocence until proven guilty etc... goes for ALL people. I thought that was one of the best things about democratic countries. (ressisting arrest is another thing, obviously) Human rights groups have an important job.

New administation is not an excuse - CIA and FBI had plenty of info on terrorists at all times - it is their job. And the more facts come out, the more it seems at least more could have been done about it, if not prevent it.

Symphaty for Iraquis?
Where was that for years since Saddam came into power (I bet CIA had plenty of info on his regime all along), where was that in '88 where "chemical Ali" had lots of poisonous gas used on Kurds, where was that in '91 where there was open revolt ready by the Northern alliance yet the coalition moved out, leaving the Iraquis to the cruel revenge of the Guard soldiers?
US is well known for its alliances with cruel regimes whenever it suits them. Iraq was no exception.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 02:32 PM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Many here criticize the administrations case for war, yet offer no NEW alternative yet to be tried which would have achieved verifiable disarmament of Saddam without the use of military force.
Military presence around Iraq helped get inspectors back before the war didn't it?
The UN inspections continued didn't they?

All they ever asked was a couple of months more time.


Fighting terrorism? Combine diplomatic pressure with money accounts confiscations and police arrests.
It might be helpful to do more about the billion+ of people who live with less than 1 US dollar a day, help bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. (maybe have some more understanding for Palestine as well)
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 02:33 PM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,953
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Re: sigh

.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 05:15 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
go reread this thread.

http://forum.interference.com/showth...0&pagenumber=1

lol at "hard to detect items such as WMD" when rumsfeld showed them to all the world when he was making his famous speech, all maps and photos and stuff, and until now no WMDs found.

so the U.S. administration is not only responsible of breaching international law, fucking up diplomatic relations all over the western hemisphere, of letting hundreds of Americans die, of betraying good American Conservatives like Dreadsox, of killing thousands of Iraqis calling it civilian casualities, ah, well, iīm tired of compiling that list.

most of the Americans know that itīs time for a change. they know that their leaders have betryed them, and that their country needs a change in foreign politics - who cares if a con or a lib prez. just give me one less ill-minded. one who cares for lives. one who protects his country - which Bush didnīt. Bush still is not able of protecting the lives of Americans. Donīt forget that. The administration canīt guarantee you that tomorrow you wonīt die for a fucking bomb by another Timothy Mc Veigh.

I said it 2 years ago and it just plain looks as if terrorism is still alive and well. So Iīve been proven right - you just canīt get rid of terrorists by fighting war against a country. Maybe able to get rid of dicators and kill a few journalists in Bagdad hotels, fine. Take a look at the chaos now..

But terrorists? Nah. I donīt think the wave of terrorism will be stopped. Not with increased security on airports, not with video cameras in every damn street, not by your neighbors dog, not by the U.S. army. Because terrorists donīt give a fuck.

Thatīs sad enough.
Rumsfeld mentioned declassified intelligence about the potential location of WMDs. Once such area's were investigated, it was found that these particular sites did not have WMDs. But that does not mean that Saddam did not have WMDs. Lets look again at the case for war.

The case for war was based on Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. Saddam never complied with any of the 17 UN resolutions passed against him including ones in regards to the verifiable disarmament of WMD.

US intelligence estimates were also used but they were nore the chief reason for military action. The fact that many of these estimates turned out to be wrong is not a surprise but a normal occurence in dealing with this type of intelligence.

Since March 1991, the Gulf War Ceace Fire, it has been incumbent upon Saddam and Saddam alone to verifiably disarm of all WMD. Member States of the UN do not have to prove ANYTHING! That is Saddam's requirement.


The US administration conducted all of its actions in compliance with international law. UN resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all approved the use of military force to insure the disarmament of Saddam. Resolutions 1483 and beyond have opproved of the current occupation of Iraq.

More than 60 countries are now involved with the political and economic development of Iraq. This is one of the largest coalitions in history. Relations may be strained between with France and Germany, but thats as far as it goes and even those countries continue enormous cooperation with the USA in many area's.

Over 50 million people have been liberated in two countries. Saddam murdered 1.7 million people while he was in power. How many more would he have killed and tortured if his rule had continued. Iraq now has a chance for democracy and a prosperous future. The Majority of Iraqi Citizens in a recent extensive poll conducted all over Iraq say they approve of what the United States and other countries did and want US troops to stay. Most Iraqi Citizens say life is better now than before the war. Its rather obvious the world is a better place without Saddam in power and its a mystery why there are people who can't seem to recognize that.

Current Opinion polls of Americans show that a majority support the invasion and removal of Saddam from power. A slim number support the re-election of Bush over Senator Kerry. A Substantial majority trust Bush over Kerry in dealing with Terrorism and other National Security issues.

There has not been a single attack on US territory in the past 2.5 years. The invasion of Afghanistan and capturing and killing thousands of terrorist has made the world a much safer place than it was before 9/11.

There are obviously some people who think the world might be better off if the USA and other countries had not removed the Taliban and Saddam. But the facts show that is not the case. The large scale use of military force to hunt and destroy terrorist where ever they are makes the world safer just as when police catch criminals and take them off the street by whatever means.

There were all these predictions that liberals made about the invasion of Iraq. 900,000 dead, millions of refugees etc. These things never happened. The same was said about Afghanistan. The United States has accomplished more in Afghanistan with 1/10th the forces in only 2 years than the Soviets did in 9 years with 10 times as many troops.

Economic and Political development in countries takes years. There will be lots of problems along the way, and any cynic or critic will be able to find something that they can spin into "see things are not working, its a failure". But careful examination of all the facts and finally look at the big picture, is the only way to get an accurate idea of what is going on, and this will reveal a different story than the often cherry picked points made by critics.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 05:42 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Re: sigh

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl


Good points hiphop.

Bush only went after Al Qaeda after 9/11.

"We were all wrong, probably."
No, they did not talk about equipment or "programs" to make WMDs, but they said Iraq HAD WMDs and was an imminent threat and had to be dealt with ASAP - remember the Powell speech in UN?
BOTH has yet to be verified by US/Britain since they made that claim, yet we had people like Kay or Scott Ritter (the last name may be wrong, the chief US weapons inspector before the UN inspectors left Iraw in '98) and several other knowledgeable people say Iraq was not a threat, had NO nuclear weapons (because their nuclear weapon programme was in fact destroyed before '98), all they MIGHT have had was biological/chemical weapons, nothing sufficient to pose a threat to US or the world, not even their neighbours.
I'm guessing both UN inspectors and the later US investigators knew what they're doing and where to look (with today's technology and advanced intelligence).

Not true, but nevermind. People have offerend plenty of evindence against Bush's administration claims. (there's other stuff they did besides Iraq but let's not go there...)

AFAK, Iraqui people still don't have the oil supply back on pre-war level. Along with high unemployment, bombings and humiliating raids and lack of electricity supply, it is clear US were/are not prepared enough for the "day after".
The amount of opium in Afghanistan actually rose up, and taliban/Al Qaeda members preventive action was only effectively achieved in the area around the capital city.

If it was really about WMDs, then how come that Saddam and his sons and most trusted members of the regime got the offer to leave the country and prevent the war from US?

As for opposing the administration, just think what happened to US ambassador Wilson (I think that's his name) who said Iraq was not buying uranium in Niger. A member of White house revealed his wife as a CIA agent.
No problem speaking out right?

By the way, why is the president advisor Condoleeza Rice not on the stand with 9/11 commission? I heard she's very keen on appearing in TV shows of all sorts...and if they check up Clarke's testimony, let's also reveal Bush's and everyone elses - one hour testimony? how much valuable info could the comission possibly have gotten?.
(and what do you mean Bush had greater service? He's been in the office 3+years while Clarke served under several presidents. and didn't Rice also get on board with Bush?)
IRAQ DID HAVE WMD's as reported by the United Nations inspectors! The question is where are they now or if they were destroyed, where are the remains. It was Saddam's responsibility to verifiably disarm of all WMD. It was his responsibility to account for everything regardless of what state or condition it was in.

The equipment and programs found by Dr. Kay's team, over 300 such items, were in violation of UN resolution 1441.

I remember the Powell speech and have it on tape. Many of the things said were based on the best US intelligence at the time, but the central case for military action was Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM OF ALL WMD.

In regards to Biological and Chemical weapons, the United Nations following the first Gulf War required Saddam to completely disarm of all Biological and Chemical weapons and related equipment because IT WAS VIEWED AS A THREAT TO THE REGION AND THE WORLD! This was in March 1991 in the Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement. UN resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all approve the use of military force if Saddam failed in his requirements to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD.

If Biological and Chemical weapons of Saddam were not viewed as a threat, the United Nations would never of passed UN resolutions under Chapter VII rules calling for Saddam to be disarmed of such WMD. Chapter VII rules of the UN allow for the use of military force to enforce UN resolutions. If Biological and Chemical weapons were no threat, there would be no need to disarm Saddam of them much less pass resolutions that authorized the use of military force to disarm him if he failed to do so.

Todays technology is not a crystal ball. Before the first Gulf War, people thought Saddam was 10 years away from having a Nuclear weapon. When the war was over and inspectors went in with the cooperation of Saddam, it was discovered he was only a year away from having a nuclear weapon.

As far as conditions are in Iraq today, why not ask the Iraqi people themselves. Please check the other thread with recent scientific poll done of Iraqi citizens. It reveals that most Iraqi's supported the US invasion and most say that life for them today is better than before the war.

Today in Iraq, there is more energy supply available to the average person than at any time since 1990. There is no more deaths and tortures from Saddam's security services or the withholding of food and other humanitarian supplies by Saddam's military.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Quada are on the run. Those that understand the history of Afghanistan realize that things have not been this good since before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Are there problems with Warlords and drugs. Of course. Those problems have existed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and they are not going to go away over night.


Saddam and members of his regime were offered to leave Iraq because the war was about the verifiable disarmament of Saddam. That would have been achieved if Saddam and the key members of his regime left the country peacefully.

Its not WMD alone or Saddam alone, its WMD + SADDAM.

As far as service goes, Bush holds a higher position than Clarke ever has. Rice has been an expert in International Relations for decades and worked for the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney all have long careers involving national security.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 05:54 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl


I think all administrations, including way back to Bush sr. and Reagan (the Afghanistan operations with the taliban that had Bin Laden involved started in the 80's) share some of the blame. However current's administration obviously more so than others since it happened on their watch.

Fair trial, innocence until proven guilty etc... goes for ALL people. I thought that was one of the best things about democratic countries. (ressisting arrest is another thing, obviously) Human rights groups have an important job.

New administation is not an excuse - CIA and FBI had plenty of info on terrorists at all times - it is their job. And the more facts come out, the more it seems at least more could have been done about it, if not prevent it.

Symphaty for Iraquis?
Where was that for years since Saddam came into power (I bet CIA had plenty of info on his regime all along), where was that in '88 where "chemical Ali" had lots of poisonous gas used on Kurds, where was that in '91 where there was open revolt ready by the Northern alliance yet the coalition moved out, leaving the Iraquis to the cruel revenge of the Guard soldiers?
US is well known for its alliances with cruel regimes whenever it suits them. Iraq was no exception.
The Taliban were not formed until 1996. Bin Ladin may have served in some capacity in Afghanistan but he was an Arab, an outsider. Most of the Mujahadeen that fought the Soviets grew into the NORTHERN ALLIANCE that fought the Taliban when it came to power in 1996.

The Soviet Union was the supplier and trainer of the Iraqi military. The vast majority of Iraqi military equipment comes from the Soviet Union with most of the remainder from China and France to a lesser extent.

In the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq war, the United States had very little means to influence the situation unless it chose to send in a massive military force. This was impossible because the Cold War was still going strong and the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact still had thousands of tanks and millions of troops that could invade Western Europe at any time. The United States during the 1980s would have only sent troops if Iraq lost the war and Iran then decided after taking Iraq, to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It is only under those conditions it would have been a possiblity for the US to send troops.

In 1991, the USA could have kept going to Baghdad and unseated Saddam, but this would have risked breaking the coalition that had been built at that time and were paying the financial cost of the war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-27-2004, 06:07 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl


Military presence around Iraq helped get inspectors back before the war didn't it?
The UN inspections continued didn't they?

All they ever asked was a couple of months more time.


Fighting terrorism? Combine diplomatic pressure with money accounts confiscations and police arrests.
It might be helpful to do more about the billion+ of people who live with less than 1 US dollar a day, help bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. (maybe have some more understanding for Palestine as well)
No, the threat to invade Iraq is what got inspectors back in. But the UN inspections process is a two way street. Unarmed UN inspectors cannot verifiably disarm Saddam if he does not cooperate. You could inspect for 2 months, 2 years or 20 years, at the end of the day, only Saddam can account for the thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells that were missing.

The UN inspectors can't insure Saddam is verifiably disarmed if Saddam does not cooperate. Saddam did not cooperate once inspectors were let back in, making their presence virtually irrelevant.

A couple of months to let Saddam change his mind. This inspection process had been ongoing since 1991! OVER 12 YEARS! Two months would not have made any difference unless you believe Saddam would have suddenly changed his behavior.

What you list as means to fight terrorism are important, but that alone will not defeat terrorism. Diplomatic Pressure and Law Enforcement tactics were used for years against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Those efforts totally failed and 3,000 Americans were killed. If The United States had invaded Afghanistan following the Embassy bombings in 1998, it is possible that 9/11 could have been prevented.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 12:47 AM   #102
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I think you might be misinterpreting peoples words. What Wolfowitz may be talking about is that they never had irrifutable evidence from the CIA or other intelligence groups that there was WMD at point A or point B. They had intelligence that was indeed cause for concern, but Saddam's failure to account for known stocks according to United Nations Weapons inspectors and to complete the disarmament process in total was the administrations central case for war.

Its really a matter of the way you define the administrations statements. Wolfowitz has his, you have yours.
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy

“We never said there were stockpiles.” - Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Interview with Howard Arenstein, CBS Radio (Mar. 16, 2004).

"They have amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Defense Department (9/27/2002).

"He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"He has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).

"He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee (9/18/2002).
Perhaps I'm mistaken, STING, but I think you're assuming quite a bit about what Wolfowitz meant. If he meant to say what you say he meant to say, why didn't he say it? I realize that this is an incredibly futile argument, as you will never admit that anyone in the administration lied or even stretched the truth about anything related to Iraq. That's fine. You want to have the last word about Wolfowitz and what he didn't say but what he meant, then you go right ahead.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 02:40 AM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy




Perhaps I'm mistaken, STING, but I think you're assuming quite a bit about what Wolfowitz meant. If he meant to say what you say he meant to say, why didn't he say it? I realize that this is an incredibly futile argument, as you will never admit that anyone in the administration lied or even stretched the truth about anything related to Iraq. That's fine. You want to have the last word about Wolfowitz and what he didn't say but what he meant, then you go right ahead.
If anyone in the administration were caught in a clear cut lie, I assure you, the democratic party would not let it slip under the rug. Even Clarke has said that no one lied.

Is it so hard to understand that someone like Wolfowitz talks about things from a very different point of view from others.

I'd certainly would admit that someone had lied if there was irrifutable evidence to back it up instead of the constant fishing that characterizes the criticism to date.

No one has yet to produce anything that shows that anyone in this administration said anything they knew to be false. Intelligence that later turns out to be false or something else are not examples of lies or stretching the truth. Thats simply the nature of intelligence. Its a daily occurence for anyone involved in the intelligence business.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 05:30 AM   #104
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Intelligence that later turns out to be false or something else are not examples of lies or stretching the truth. Thats simply the nature of intelligence. Its a daily occurence for anyone involved in the intelligence business.
If thatīs true, intelligence is not held responsible for the quality of its information. So the way the administrastion makes politics semms to work like "CIA or NSA tells us something, ok, we know that thereīs a big chance intelligence either doesnīt have the right info or doesnīt have the full info or that intelligence lies or intelligence is unable to verify the information, but anyway, lets trust intelligence, get it over with and bomb another country".

I think not only the American citizens, but all the citizens of the world have a right for political decisions which are based on accurate information. The public has the right on intelligent decisions, not on decisions which are based on informations from so-called intelligence which is not verified.

Maybe the system is the problem. Change the system.

Next time, let the public VOTE if they want war. Direct Vote, not Washington VIP Congress shitvote. If you let the public decide, thereīs no problem for politicians later on.

If the administration had played a fair game, Rumsfeld would have said "We think Iraq could have WMDs, we canīt verify it, so fact is, we want to go to War, not for the WMDs, but for removing a dictator, gaining influence in the region, securing energy for Americans, plus a little boom boom so we need to continue to invest a big percentage of the taxpayers money into arms production, maintainance and the armed forces, plus because we just wanna try if we can be held accountable for rolling over the world without the OK of the United Nations. Well, my dear fellow Americans, have a vote: all Americans should have a say whether American soldiers will die on the battlefield or not". If Rumsfeld or Bush would have said so, then the administration wouldnīt have any problem now.

As we can see, the administration wanted and needed that war. I can guarantee you now that in the next five years, the situation in the region of Iraq and surrounding countries in the Middle East will not cool down. The administration knows that. I can guarante you, they even had it predicted by intelligence, they knew that beforehand.

The interesting question is not "Did they lie or didnīt they?" Everyone knows they did, but like politicians, they always try to talk their way out of it... old game. I have seen it too many times, it bores me. The interesting question is "why did they lie?"
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 05:36 AM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:17 AM
As a side note, I think someone of (British?) intelligence has to be held accountable for illegally spying Kofi Annan. Being European, for me thatīs a slap in the face of democracy which should probably be resolved at the International Criminal Court.

As to intelligence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...889641,00.html

Given its history, US intelligence should come with a health warning

Ronan Bennett and Alice Perman
Thursday February 6, 2003
The Guardian

Colin Powell certainly raised questions for the Iraqis to answer at the UN yesterday. But before anyone gets carried away there are equally important questions to ask of US intelligence.
We know from experience that politicians about to go to war are not above manipulating information to heat up public opinion. They have manufactured international incidents - the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin "clash", for example, which President Johnson used to deceive the Senate into giving him a declaration of war against North Vietnam. They can be the simple peddling of "evil Hun" stories, as with the discredited accounts of Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators. History has revealed the truth about such episodes, but too late.

On the few occasions we are allowed sufficient facts to form an independent assessment, the intelligence on offer is rarely persuasive. We were told, for example, of FBI intelligence linking Lotfi Raissi, an Algerian-born pilot living in Britain, to the September 11 hijackers. Raissi was arrested in September 2001 and sent to Belmarsh to wait extradition proceedings. To support its case, the FBI claimed to have video evidence of Raissi with Hani Hanjour (who flew into the Pentagon) flying together in America. Incontrovertible evidence, except that defence lawyers demonstrated the "video" to be a webcam picture of Raissi and his cousin taken in Colnbrook. Raissi spent five months as a maximum security prisoner before being released.

Raissi's case is untypical in that intelligence is rarely tested in open court. However, thanks to British and US journalists we now have a clearer picture of the US bombing on August 20 1998 of the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory near Khartoum. At the time, the US and Britain linked al Shifa to the manufacture of nerve gas. Subsequent revelations have shown it to be nothing of the sort.

Al Shifa was attacked in retaliation for the al-Qaida bombings of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam on August 7, in which there were hundreds of casualties. The day after the attacks, the president's advisers ordered the Pentagon and CIA to draw up a list of sites connected to Osama bin Laden. Twenty targets in Afghanistan, Sudan and a third, undisclosed, country were selected. Al Shifa was included because a soil sample covertly gathered the previous December was said to reveal traces of Empta (a chemical used in the manufacture of VX nerve gas).

However, CIA analysts wanted more testing. But in the rush to strike back, the analysts' doubts were pushed aside. On August 19, when the final recommendations were made for Clinton, al Shifa was still on the hitlist, along with a second target in Sudan and al-Qaida training camps near Khost in Afghanistan. However, misgivings persisted about both Sudanese targets within the CIA, the State Department and the National Security Council. Doubts were also raised at the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, where officials wrote a report for secretary of state Madeleine Albright questioning the link between al Shifa and Bin Laden.

The internal disquiet did save one target from destruction - the second Sudanese site, a tannery alleged to have been owned by Bin Laden. It was removed from the list at 2am on August 20, but could not alter al Shifa's fate. Later that day 13 cruise missiles struck the plant, reducing it to rubble and killing a nightwatchman. Clinton justified the attacks "because of the threat they present to our national security", and in Britain Tony Blair "strongly supported" the action.

However, Sudan, backed by scientists, diplomats and engineers, maintained that the plant made anti-malarial and anti-TB drugs, aspirin and veterinary medicine and had no connection with chemical weapons. Further doubts began to emerge from unexpected sources: Jack Downing, head of the CIA's directorate of operations, believed the attack was unjustified. Analysts from the State Department were sceptical, as were the heads of the CIA's Africa division and counterterrorism centre. Significantly, when the plant's owner, Saleh Idris, a Saudi businessman, filed a lawsuit against the US seeking release of his assets in US banks, frozen after the attack, the Treasury caved in.

In the face of the evidence it might have been expected that the British and US governments' line would change. It did not, even though privately the attack is now accepted to have been unjustified. To admit that intelligence can be flawed would make it more difficult for politicians to justify inexcusable actions simply by claiming to know more than we do.

Perhaps we cannot blame governments for doing what they do. But we can, and should, blame ourselves if we accept uncritically what they tell us.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com