so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 4 - 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 06-02-2003, 02:57 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Analysis: Comparing post-war politics in 1992 with 2004
President Bush hopes history won't repeat itself
By Bill Schneider
CNN Political Unit
Tuesday, April 22, 2003 Posted: 11:34 AM EDT (1534 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Will 2004 be 1992 all over again? That's the Democrats' dream -- and the Republicans' nightmare.

In 1991, the first President Bush was riding high in the polls, savoring victory in the Persian Gulf War, but he was defeated in his bid for re-election one year later. In 2003, President George W, Bush is riding high in the polls, savoring a still-undeclared victory in Iraq. But what about next year's election?

A poll taken immediately after the fall of Baghdad this month shows the economy and jobs outweighing the war in Iraq and terrorism as the voters' number one concern.

Asked to name the most important problem facing the nation, 33 percent of those polls cited the economy and jobs, compared to 17 percent who pointed to the war and terrorism, according to the CBS News/New York Times poll.

The 1992 campaign was about one issue, summed up by Democrats who came up with this campaign slogan: "It's the economy, stupid."

The Persian Gulf War simply vanished from the 1992 campaign. Bill Clinton certainly never talked about it. It wasn't on Ross Perot's flip charts.

If the Democrats have their way, the 2004 campaign will be a re-run of 1992: It's still the economy, stupid.

We'll hear the number '2 million' a lot. That's the figure many economists have cited as the number of jobs lost since George W. Bush became president.

It was the record $290 billion deficit of 1992 that got Perot into the race. That record will be broken in 2004, with an expected deficit of more than $300 billion.

And Democrats haven't forgotten Florida.

But there are reasons to believe 2004 will not be a rerun of 1992.

For one thing, this President Bush has an economic plan. "The tax relief I have proposed and will push for until enacted would create 1.4 million new jobs by the end of 2004," Bush said at a Rose Garden event earlier this month.

Also, there's a very big difference between 1992 and 2004: The United States has been attacked, and the war on terrorism continues.

"It's a war that requires patience and focus," Bush said March 4.

There's some evidence that Democrats will have a tough time setting the agenda when voters go to the polls. In the 2002 midterm election, Democrats tried to change the subject from national security to the economy. It didn't work.

In 1992, the United States was out of Iraq. In 2004, the United States will still be in Iraq, maybe even running the country.

Is that good for Republicans? It is if things are going well. But if Americans find themselves under attack, they might ask, "What are we still doing in Iraq?" And, "Why are we rebuilding Iraq's economy. What about our economy?"

But there is another factor that could help Bush.

In 1992, the Cold War was over. The war on terrorism was 10 years away. So Americans could elect a president who had no national security credentials. That could not have happened before the 1990s. Or after. Whoever the Democrats nominate next year will have to pass a credibility threshold on national security that never came up for Bill Clinton.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-02-2003, 05:34 PM   #47
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 01:46 AM
that last article is interesting, sting2, but i think that deserves a thread of its own, dont you?
__________________

__________________
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 06-03-2003, 04:08 PM   #48
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:46 AM
OK so back on topic:

HIGHTOWER: Our Lying President

By Jim Hightower, AlterNet
May 26, 2003

What a Wonderland World it is in Washington! Wrong can be right, down can be up, a lie can be truth all because the president says it's so.


Our present president seems to love to lie. Not because George W likes doing wrong, but because lies simplify his life, turning his confusion into clarity. I think he even believes his lies when he speaks them, and when he gets caught lying, hey that's in the past, it's just a technicality, and besides... it depends on how you define "truth."


How about the big truth of WMDs? Where are those tons of Weapons of Mass Destruction that George W so absolutely insisted Saddam Hussein had targeted at the U.S., posing the imminent threat that was his moral excuse for invading Iraq?


It's a scream to watch the Bushites now try to squirm out of the inconvenient reality that they've found no masses of WMDs in Iraq. Lately they've tried to claim every slingshot, trailor, empty casing, and barbeque pit they come across as "proof" of Saddam's WMD program.


But when launching his Iraq Attack, George didn't talk about such small stuff he spoke specifically about a "mushroom cloud" that Saddam would ignite in America. The Bushites also flatly asserted that Saddam had 500 tons of mustard gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 30,000 rockets to deliver chemical weapons, dozens of scud missiles, 18 biological warfare factories, all sorts of long-range missiles and other WMDs that now can't be found.


First they claimed that Saddam hid them, then that he took them with him (how, in his backback?). But now, the Bushites say it doesn't matter we kicked Saddam's butt and that's all anyone needs to know. Doesn't matter? The president blatantly lied to We The People and it's OK? What moral message are the Bushites sending to America's children and the people of the world?


Lies don't make truth, and might doesn't make right even if a president says they do.


They're calling for official inquiries in the UK as well as the US.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 06-03-2003, 06:41 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:46 AM
The British press is giving Blair hell about no WMD discoveries. Why shouldn't we be giving Bush hell about this? I'm glad Saddam is no longer in power but Bush used the WMD's argument as a rationale for the war, not "nation-building". Now, no evidence of WMD's. So what if we whipped Saddam's ass. He's still missing.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-03-2003, 11:10 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Scarletwine,

The article you posted should be re-written and called the " The Ignorance of Jim Hightower".



"The Bushites also flatly asserted that Saddam had 500 tons of mustard gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 30,000 rockets to deliver chemical weapons, dozens of scud missiles, 18 biological warfare factories"

Jim, that is incorrect. It was the United Nations inspectors and Mr. Hussein himself that put out and confirmed such figures back in 1998.

In November 1998, UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq without having completed the inspections process. They were let back in in 2002 because of the threat to use force from the Bush Administration and others.

Mr. Hussein claimed that he destroyed the above WMD that he had in 1998 in the years from 1998 to 2002. Mr. Hussein did not produce any evidence to support his claim which he is required to do for all WMD under the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

Any failure by the government of Saddam Hussein to fully account for known WMD is a breach of mulitple UN resolutions and the ceacefire agreement which mandates if necessary, the use of military force, to insure compliance with the resolutions and the ceacefire agreement when material breech happens.

IF Jim wants to talk about Truth on the issue of WMD, then he needs to look at Mr. Hussein or the UN inspectors. The above figures came from the UNITED NATIONS and Saddams regime, not the Bush Administration.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-03-2003, 11:32 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Verte76,

"The British press is giving Blair hell about no WMD discoveries. Why shouldn't we be giving Bush hell about this? I'm glad Saddam is no longer in power but Bush used the WMD's argument as a rationale for the war, not "nation-building". Now, no evidence of WMD's. So what if we whipped Saddam's ass. He's still missing"

Mr. Hussein and the United Nations both confirmed in 1998 that Iraq had multiple stocks of WMD. Inspectors were kicked out in 1998. With the Inspectors out of the country, Saddam claims that he finally did something that he had not done in over 7 years of inspections up to that point. He claims that with the UN inspectors out of the country, he unilaterally destroyed his remaining WMD stocks.

But Mr. Hussein under UN resolutions and a ceacefire agreement is required to document any such destruction of WMD. If Saddam in fact did this from 1998-2002, then he is required to show the evidence of the destruction. 30,000 shells is a lot of metal.

It is not evidence of Saddam having WMD that justified the invasion, but rather Saddam's lack of evidence to show what happened to the WMD he himself, along with the UN, confirmed that he had in 1998.

Under the UN resolutions and Ceacefire agreement, any failure to account for WMD by Saddam is grounds for the possible use of military force by member states of the UN.

It is Saddam's obligation to account for and prove that Iraq no longer has WMD. It is the member states of the UN obligation to verify and insure whether what Saddam says is so.

When Saddam says "I have no more WMDs", the UN says "Prove it". A Cooperating Saddam would then show the evidence of the destruction of all documented WMDs or hand over any WMD that would still be intact. The UN would then verify this evidence and then decide whether Saddam had proven that Iraq was successfully disarmed.

Since March 1991 when the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement was signed, the burden of proof in regards to WMD has always been completely on Saddam. Its the responsibility of the members states of the UN to decide if Saddam has successfully proved that Iraq is disarmed of all WMD.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-04-2003, 10:42 PM   #52
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:46 AM
STING2,
The issue isn't really whether Iraq had to prove whether it still WMD's or not (even though you keep repeating the mantra that they did.
The issue is whether the administration hyped or "cooked" the intelligence they had to get the majority of the American public to believe there was a clear and immenent threat from Iraq. I mean they even managed to get them to believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11, to me that's sad that people don't educate themselves more, instead of just listening to news blurbs (another case for not allowing media concentration if I ever saw one). Even the CIA is all but laying the blame on Rummy by his interpretation of the message. Even in Woodards book he basically accused him & Wolfy of leading a rampage to Bagdad.
Here's a new article. I especially love the qoute attributed to Powell about bull**it.
Credibility Gap, Anyone?

By Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service
June 4, 2003

WASHINGTON - When all three major U.S. newsweeklies Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report run major features on the same day on possible government lying, you can bet you have the makings of a major scandal.


And when the two most important outlets of neo-conservative opinion The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal come out on the same day with lead editorials spluttering outrage about suggestions of government lying, you can bet that things are going to get very hot as summer approaches in Washington.


The controversy has mushroomed the past week as to whether the administration of President George W. Bush either exaggerated or lied about evidence that it said it had about the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion.


"This is potentially very serious," said one Congressional aide. "If it's shown we went to war because of intelligence that was 'cooked' by the administration, heads will have to roll and not just little heads, big ones."


The administration was already on the defensive last week as the controversy took off in Europe particularly in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair found himself assailed from all directions for either wilfully exaggerating the intelligence himself or being "suckered," as his former foreign minister Robin Cook called it this weekend, by Washington's neo-conservative hawks, who started agitating for war even before the dust settled in lower Manhattan after the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.


Matters took a turn for the worse when the London Guardian reported Saturday about the existence of a transcript, obviously leaked from a senior British official, of an exchange at the Waldorf Hotel in New York between U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Minister Jack Straw just before Powell's presentation of the evidence against Iraq before the United Nations Security Council Feb. 5.


It quotes Powell, whose forceful case to the Council was decisive in persuading U.S. public opinion that Baghdad represented a serious threat, as being "apprehensive" about the evidence presented to him by the intelligence agencies. He reportedly expressed the hope that the actual facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces." (At a Rome press conference Monday, Powell insisted that he considered the evidence "overwhelming" when he spoke before the Council.)


But it appears that Powell's musing was accurate, as, after almost two months in uncontested control of Iraq, U.S. troops and investigators have failed to come up with concrete evidence even of an Iraqi WMD program, let alone an actual weapon.


The scenario of an uneasy Powell received a major boost in the accounts of the three newsweeklies. U.S. News reported, for example, that, during a rehearsal of Powell's presentation at CIA headquarters Feb. 1, the normally mild-mannered retired general at one point ''tossed several pages in the air. 'I'm not reading this,' he declared. 'This is bull '."


The same magazine also reported that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) formally concluded that, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons" in September 2002, just as Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld was telling Congress that the Baghdad "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."


The accounts by Newsweek and Time were similarly damning. One "informed military source" told Newsweek that when the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) asked the CIA for specific WMD targets that should be destroyed in the first stages of the invasion, the agency only complied reluctantly.


But what it provided "was crap," a CENTCOM planner told the magazine, consisting mainly of buildings that were bombed in the first Gulf War in 1991. And agency experts reportedly could not tell the war-planners what agents were located where.


If true, that contradicts a series of bald assertions by administration officials and their supporters over the last nine months. "Simply stated," Vice President Dick Cheney declared in the first call to arms last August, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."


"We know where (the WMD) are," declared Rumsfeld in a television interview Mar. 30, well into the first week of the war. "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."


He has since retreated from that certainty, suggesting last week that the Iraqis "may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."


There is also growing doubt about the evidence that Bush himself touted this weekend as proof two truck trailers described by officials as mobile weapons-productions labs. According to a CIA report noted in the 'Slate' Internet magazine, key equipment for growing, sterilizing and drying bacteria was not present in either trailer. Iraqi officials have said the trailers were used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.


Matthew Meselson, a Harvard University expert on biological weapons who 20 years ago single-handedly debunked reports by senior Reagan administration officials several of whom hold relevant positions in the Bush government about the use by Soviet allies of mycotoxins against rebels in Laos and Afghanistan, has also expressed doubts about the trailers' purpose, and called for the CIA to hand over the evidence to independent scientists to make an assessment.


Retired intelligence officials from both the CIA and the DIA are also coming out with ever-stronger statements accusing the intelligence community of twisting and exaggerating the evidence to justify war.


They say both agencies were intimidated by the political pressure exerted in particular by neo-conservative hawks under Cheney and Rumsfeld, who even established a special unit in the defense secretary's office to determine what intelligence was "missing."


Much of the evidence on which the WMD case was based came from defectors supplied by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi that has been championed by the neo-conservatives including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis Libby and Defense Policy Board members Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, and James Woolsey for more than a decade.


Retired senior CIA, DIA and State Department intelligence officers, including the CIA's former counter-terrorism chief Vince Cannistraro and the DIA's former chief of Middle East intelligence W. Patrick Lang, have also spoken bluntly to reporters about what they call the administration's corruption of the intelligence process to justify war.


Both the CIA and State have long distrusted the INC and Chalabi, in particular, although Chalabi remains the Pentagon's favorite for leading an interim government in Baghdad.


All of this has outraged the administration, which insists the intelligence community was united in its assessment about the existence of WMD, and its neo-conservative defenders. The Wall Street Journal on Monday accused the "French and the European left" of trying to tarnish the U.S. victory and charged that discontent among CIA analysts was spurred by resentment of Rumsfeld.


But even the Journal appeared to be moving away from its previous position that Iraq's alleged WMD constituted a threat to the United States and its allies. "Whether or not WMD is found takes nothing away from the Iraq war victory," it said, citing the gains made in human rights by Saddam Hussein's demise.


Nonetheless, what the administration knew about WMD and when it knew it to paraphrase the famous Watergate questions are now claiming the limelight, to the administration's clear discomfort.


On Sunday, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said he hoped to begin hearings with the Select Committee on Intelligence before the July 4 recess, while the ranking member of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee has asked the CIA to produce a report by July 1 reconciling its pre-war assessments with actual findings on the ground.

IMO, I think you need to reassess your conviction that Powell has the influence you think he does, as well as the admins. culpability in deception.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 06-04-2003, 10:44 PM   #53
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:46 AM
STING2,
The issue isn't really whether Iraq had to prove whether it still WMD's or not (even though you keep repeating the mantra that they did.
The issue is whether the administration hyped or "cooked" the intelligence they had to get the majority of the American public to believe there was a clear and immenent threat from Iraq. I mean they even managed to get them to believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11, to me that's sad that people don't educate themselves more, instead of just listening to news blurbs (another case for not allowing media concentration if I ever saw one). Even the CIA is all but laying the blame on Rummy by his interpretation of the message. Even in Woodards book he basically accused him & Wolfy of leading a rampage to Bagdad.
Here's a new article. I especially love the qoute attributed to Powell about bull**it.
Credibility Gap, Anyone?

By Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service
June 4, 2003

WASHINGTON - When all three major U.S. newsweeklies Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report run major features on the same day on possible government lying, you can bet you have the makings of a major scandal.


And when the two most important outlets of neo-conservative opinion The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal come out on the same day with lead editorials spluttering outrage about suggestions of government lying, you can bet that things are going to get very hot as summer approaches in Washington.


The controversy has mushroomed the past week as to whether the administration of President George W. Bush either exaggerated or lied about evidence that it said it had about the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion.


"This is potentially very serious," said one Congressional aide. "If it's shown we went to war because of intelligence that was 'cooked' by the administration, heads will have to roll and not just little heads, big ones."


The administration was already on the defensive last week as the controversy took off in Europe particularly in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair found himself assailed from all directions for either wilfully exaggerating the intelligence himself or being "suckered," as his former foreign minister Robin Cook called it this weekend, by Washington's neo-conservative hawks, who started agitating for war even before the dust settled in lower Manhattan after the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.


Matters took a turn for the worse when the London Guardian reported Saturday about the existence of a transcript, obviously leaked from a senior British official, of an exchange at the Waldorf Hotel in New York between U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Minister Jack Straw just before Powell's presentation of the evidence against Iraq before the United Nations Security Council Feb. 5.


It quotes Powell, whose forceful case to the Council was decisive in persuading U.S. public opinion that Baghdad represented a serious threat, as being "apprehensive" about the evidence presented to him by the intelligence agencies. He reportedly expressed the hope that the actual facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces." (At a Rome press conference Monday, Powell insisted that he considered the evidence "overwhelming" when he spoke before the Council.)


But it appears that Powell's musing was accurate, as, after almost two months in uncontested control of Iraq, U.S. troops and investigators have failed to come up with concrete evidence even of an Iraqi WMD program, let alone an actual weapon.


The scenario of an uneasy Powell received a major boost in the accounts of the three newsweeklies. U.S. News reported, for example, that, during a rehearsal of Powell's presentation at CIA headquarters Feb. 1, the normally mild-mannered retired general at one point ''tossed several pages in the air. 'I'm not reading this,' he declared. 'This is bull '."


The same magazine also reported that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) formally concluded that, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons" in September 2002, just as Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld was telling Congress that the Baghdad "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."


The accounts by Newsweek and Time were similarly damning. One "informed military source" told Newsweek that when the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) asked the CIA for specific WMD targets that should be destroyed in the first stages of the invasion, the agency only complied reluctantly.


But what it provided "was crap," a CENTCOM planner told the magazine, consisting mainly of buildings that were bombed in the first Gulf War in 1991. And agency experts reportedly could not tell the war-planners what agents were located where.


If true, that contradicts a series of bald assertions by administration officials and their supporters over the last nine months. "Simply stated," Vice President Dick Cheney declared in the first call to arms last August, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."


"We know where (the WMD) are," declared Rumsfeld in a television interview Mar. 30, well into the first week of the war. "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."


He has since retreated from that certainty, suggesting last week that the Iraqis "may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."


There is also growing doubt about the evidence that Bush himself touted this weekend as proof two truck trailers described by officials as mobile weapons-productions labs. According to a CIA report noted in the 'Slate' Internet magazine, key equipment for growing, sterilizing and drying bacteria was not present in either trailer. Iraqi officials have said the trailers were used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.


Matthew Meselson, a Harvard University expert on biological weapons who 20 years ago single-handedly debunked reports by senior Reagan administration officials several of whom hold relevant positions in the Bush government about the use by Soviet allies of mycotoxins against rebels in Laos and Afghanistan, has also expressed doubts about the trailers' purpose, and called for the CIA to hand over the evidence to independent scientists to make an assessment.


Retired intelligence officials from both the CIA and the DIA are also coming out with ever-stronger statements accusing the intelligence community of twisting and exaggerating the evidence to justify war.


They say both agencies were intimidated by the political pressure exerted in particular by neo-conservative hawks under Cheney and Rumsfeld, who even established a special unit in the defense secretary's office to determine what intelligence was "missing."


Much of the evidence on which the WMD case was based came from defectors supplied by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi that has been championed by the neo-conservatives including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis Libby and Defense Policy Board members Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, and James Woolsey for more than a decade.


Retired senior CIA, DIA and State Department intelligence officers, including the CIA's former counter-terrorism chief Vince Cannistraro and the DIA's former chief of Middle East intelligence W. Patrick Lang, have also spoken bluntly to reporters about what they call the administration's corruption of the intelligence process to justify war.


Both the CIA and State have long distrusted the INC and Chalabi, in particular, although Chalabi remains the Pentagon's favorite for leading an interim government in Baghdad.


All of this has outraged the administration, which insists the intelligence community was united in its assessment about the existence of WMD, and its neo-conservative defenders. The Wall Street Journal on Monday accused the "French and the European left" of trying to tarnish the U.S. victory and charged that discontent among CIA analysts was spurred by resentment of Rumsfeld.


But even the Journal appeared to be moving away from its previous position that Iraq's alleged WMD constituted a threat to the United States and its allies. "Whether or not WMD is found takes nothing away from the Iraq war victory," it said, citing the gains made in human rights by Saddam Hussein's demise.


Nonetheless, what the administration knew about WMD and when it knew it to paraphrase the famous Watergate questions are now claiming the limelight, to the administration's clear discomfort.


On Sunday, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said he hoped to begin hearings with the Select Committee on Intelligence before the July 4 recess, while the ranking member of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee has asked the CIA to produce a report by July 1 reconciling its pre-war assessments with actual findings on the ground.

I think people need to reassess the conviction that Powell has the influence you think they think he does, as well as the admins. culpability in deception.

That is
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 12:26 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Scarletwine,

According to UN weapons inspectors that were forced to leave Iraq at the end of 1998 and based on Saddam's own at admissions at the time, at the end of 1998 with inspectors kicked out of the country, Iraq had "500 tons of mustard gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 30,000 rockets to deliver chemical weapons, dozens of scud missiles, 18 biological warfare factories"

This is a FACT!

Everything in the article you posted by Jim Lobe is conjecture and speculation or words from unnamed sources.

Did the London Guardian ever produce reliable, verifiable evidence that Powell said ANY of those things? NO, suposedly there is the existence of a transcript. How about US News's claim of what Powell said at CIA headquarters, do they have the audio for that?

Lets take the so called descripency between Rumsfeld and the DIA.

"The same magazine also reported that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) formally concluded that, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons" in September 2002, just as Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld was telling Congress that the Baghdad "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.""

What Rumsfeld is refering to in that statement is this:

"According to UN weapons inspectors that were forced to leave Iraq at the end of 1998 and based on Saddam's own at admissions at the time, at the end of 1998 with inspectors kicked out of the country, Iraq had "500 tons of mustard gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 30,000 rockets to deliver chemical weapons, dozens of scud missiles, 18 biological warfare factories""

The above is a fact, Jim Lobe's article is speculation and conjecture.

The vast Majority of the administrations case against Iraq is based on the UN inspectors final report when they were kicked out of Iraq in 1998.

The administrations case for war against Iraq is based on fact! Facts from the UN inspectors and Saddams admissions.

Jim Lobe's articles claims against the administration are not based on any facts.

The real question here is how far the administrations critics will go to HYPE and COOK up conspiricy theory's.

There is NO evidence to prove that the Bush administration cooked anything.

There is tons of evidence and proof of what Saddam Hussein had when the UN inspectors were kicked out in 1998.

That evidence was all that was needed to justify military action under a number UN resolutions and the 1991 UN Ceacefire Agreement. It constitutes the majority of the evidence the administration cited and forms the central part of their arguement for the need for military action.

If you have a problem with that evidence, direct your criticism to the UN inspections team in Iraq from 1998, not the Bush administration!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 06:48 AM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:46 AM
Ever think Saddam might have lied about what he had to possibly deter Iran from invading, ect.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 11:51 AM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Ever think Saddam might have lied about what he had to possibly deter Iran from invading, ect.

Peace
That's an interesting idea. That's possible.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 12:23 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Wow, I just read some more stuff from the British press at 4iraqis. I wonder if Blair will survive this controversy? It's getting damned hot in that political kitchen. Some of the press is calling for his resignation. Some Labour people are pretty upset. Any comments from Brits on this?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 02:26 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:46 AM
I'm a Brit.

Blair is really having a rough time at the moment. You can see that just from looking at the response of his cabinet - he had John Reid (Leader of the House of Commons) on tv yesterday denouncing the BBC because they have two sources in the intelligence services who say the government exaggerated the threat from Saddam's WMD. Reid went on to claim there are "rogue elements" in the security services attempting to discredit the government.

In PMQs (Prime Minister's Questions - ie MPS opportunity to hold the PM to account) Blair took a lot of criticism both from the opposition and within his own party. Something that's interesting is the number of extremely well-known and respected politicians who are criticising Blair for this - Clare Short the former International Development Secretary, Robin Cook former foreign secretary, as well as a huge number of backbenchers.

The call for an independent inquiry into these allegations was rejected by Blair yesterday. There are going to be two investigations, however both are an utter farce as one is to be conducted behind closed doors (ie the public will never know what was discussed) and the other investigating committee is made up of members selected by Blair himself.

One thing that's pretty important to know about British politics (sorry if that sounds condescending - I just know next-to-nothing about the politics of most other countries so I tend to assume most people don't know loads about British politics) in understanding this issue is that MPs in the Labour party won't always vote with their conscience. Party discipline in the Commons is extremely strong and it's quite rare for MPs to rebel. (Over 130 Labour MPs did vote against the government with regard to Iraq, which is extremely impressive considering backbench rebellions usually number less than forty MPS.) MPs are also concerned for their jobs (ie my MP quite literally voted in support of the war because he knew he'd lose his job if he voted against.) or for their future political career. The Blairites use this to their advantage of course.

To be honest, prior to the Iraq war, I thought Blair was likely to survive any of the consequences of the war, although it was likely he would be weakened by it and so could easily be defeated by another controversy in the near future. Now even I'm starting to this this could eventually get rid of Blair, and even if it doesn't, there are so many controversial issues coming up (ie tuition fees, foundation hospitals - both big issues in UK politics) that he could easily be defeated over those if he comes out of this seriously weakened.

Anyway...sorry to have rambled on for so long. Once I get started you just can't stop me, lol.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 03:11 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:46 AM
Dreadsox,

"Ever think Saddam might have lied about what he had to possibly deter Iran from invading, ect."

Certainly. But that does not change the facts and evidence that UN inspectors had on Saddams WMD capability independent of Saddams own admissions at the end of 1998.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-05-2003, 07:32 PM   #60
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:46 AM
"According to UN weapons inspectors that were forced to leave Iraq at the end of 1998 and based on Saddam's own at admissions at the time, at the end of 1998 with inspectors kicked out of the country, Iraq had "500 tons of mustard gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 30,000 rockets to deliver chemical weapons, dozens of scud missiles, 18 biological warfare factories"

This is a FACT! "

Not according to the head of the UN weapons inspection team. He has stated that fact since the WMD's in Iraq became a big thing again.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine 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 02:46 AM.


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