so they blatantly lie and you dont care - 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 06-13-2003, 02:54 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Bonovoxsupastar,

"If I were to write a paper in school about a current affair today and my last source was in 1998, I would fail. Bush mislead the American public into thinking they had knowledge that this was going on as we speak and the truth was he didn't. We don't know what happen. I'm just stating that Bush should have been honest in saying he didn't either, but he chose not to."

You would not fail if it was impossible for you to get a current source of information. It was impossible for the USA to insure that Saddam did or did not have WMD without invading the country. Because Saddam had the WMD in 1998, he is guilty of having it until he proves that he does not! That was always the Bush administrations arguement. It is not dishonest to say that Saddam has WMD based on the 1998 report, in light of the fact that Saddam did not cooperate with the UN to show otherwise.

Of course, political opponents of the President will twist his words to mean something else. There are many out there who are ready to give Saddam a pass, but are ready to crucify Bush on allegations that are more fitting of the words conjecture and speculation, than anything leveled against Saddam.

There is nothing to this. In the US political arena, If the Presidents political opponents want to fall on their own sword, they should keep harping on this.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 03:10 PM   #92
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
You would not fail if it was impossible for you to get a current source of information. It was impossible for the USA to insure that Saddam did or did not have WMD without invading the country. Because Saddam had the WMD in 1998, he is guilty of having it until he proves that he does not! That was always the Bush administrations arguement. It is not dishonest to say that Saddam has WMD based on the 1998 report, in light of the fact that Saddam did not cooperate with the UN to show otherwise.

Of course, political opponents of the President will twist his words to mean something else. There are many out there who are ready to give Saddam a pass, but are ready to crucify Bush on allegations that are more fitting of the words conjecture and speculation, than anything leveled against Saddam.

There is nothing to this. In the US political arena, If the Presidents political opponents want to fall on their own sword, they should keep harping on this. [/B]
If I may jump in here. STING, the president and others in his administration did far more than simply state that Saddam had weapons in 1998 and probably still had them in 2002. They made it seem that the world (and specifically the US) was in imminent danger of attack.

Also, I'm troubled by your argument that the only way the US could know whether or not Saddam had WMD was to invade. Isn't that akin to killing the patient to find the disease?
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 03:43 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:40 PM
ThatGuy,

"If I may jump in here. STING, the president and others in his administration did far more than simply state that Saddam had weapons in 1998 and probably still had them in 2002. They made it seem that the world (and specifically the US) was in imminent danger of attack."

The reason that Saddam was forced by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to give up his WMD is because his possession of such WMD was considered to be an "imminent danger" to the international community, because of his prior behavior.

For Saddam not to have WMD and there for, not be a "imminent danger" to the international community required two things. Saddam had to give the UN WMD that was still intact from the 1998 list or show the remains of the destruction of such WMD.
Saddam did not do either one, which meant he was an "imminent danger".

"Also, I'm troubled by your argument that the only way the US could know whether or not Saddam had WMD was to invade. Isn't that akin to killing the patient to find the disease?"

No, that is a bad analogy.

In light of Iraq's refusal to either hand over the WMD or show the remains of the destruction of the WMD on the 1998 lists, the only way to insure that Iraq no longer had WMD was to invade and disarm Saddam with military force.

Saddams possession of the WMD was defined as an imminent threat to the international community which is why he was forced to give up the WMD. If a patient were to be defined as an imminent threat to others because of a very infectious disease, the medical community and police would be justified in using all means necessary to prevent that person from spreading the disease.

UN resolution 678 "Authorized the use of all means necessary" to bring Iraq into compliance with all "Subsequent Resolutions".
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 04:09 PM   #94
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 01:40 PM
STING, Saddam has been an imminent threat since 1991? Such an imminent threat that he went 12 years without attacking/invading anyone (and then only used force because his country was invaded)? Such an imminent threat that the WMD the Bush administration claimed could be launched within minutes are so far not to be found? Oh, wait, he was supporting al-Qaeda, right? Oh, sorry, evidence of his support has thusfar been as elusive as the evidence of WMD.

No one is going to dispute that Saddam Hussein was a very bad man. Frankly, I'm glad he's out of power and the people of Iraq are, for the most part, living better lives. However I am not satisfied with the administration's justification for sending in troops. The evidence used was based on old information, and anything supposedly gathered by recent intelligence has shown itself to be untrue.

The fact that Saddam was found to be a threat 12 years ago does not impress me. The fact that Saddam had WMD in 1998 doesn't necessarily make him an imminent threat five years later. It was (and is) up to the administration to prove that invasion was justified. So far it has not.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 05:55 PM   #95
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:40 PM
Sting, I admire your stamina. I respect the fact that your opinion is a very small minority in this forum, but you persistantly stand up for it. Even against multiple opponents. With that being said I will make a few more remarks then retire from this debate.

Quote:
It was impossible for the USA to insure that Saddam did or did not have WMD without invading the country.
To insure that Saddam did or did not have WMD? But Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves NO DOUBT that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

We could go back and forth all day and argue over semantics of language. In you mind Bush didn't lie, but he lied to me. He tried to convince me that he had current evidence showing Saddam's activities and that we were in immediate danger.

Quote:
Of course, political opponents of the President will twist his words to mean something else. There are many out there who are ready to give Saddam a pass, but are ready to crucify Bush on allegations that are more fitting of the words conjecture and speculation, than anything leveled against Saddam.
Please don't tell me you buy into this. Giving Saddam a pass? No one that I know of, whether they were for or against this war, was giving Saddam a pass. But many, from both sides may I add, believe Bush manipulated, exagerated, or twisted the truth, or just flat out lied. I just wanted the man to be 100% honest with America about why he wanted to go to war. When you are sending our men and women out to risk their lives and when innocent peoples lives are at stake, I think it's the least he can do.

I will agree to disagree though, no hard feelings.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 08:52 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:40 PM
ThatGuy,

Saddam has been an imminent threat at any time that he has not been cooperating with the international community. A complete breakdown in cooperation did not happen until 1998. Since then, there has been near daily fighting, however small between US forces and Iraqi forces in the sky's over Iraq.

Iraq was required to be disarmed of its WMD because it was viewed as a imminent threat to the international community based on Saddams past behavior.

I know that its difficult for some to swallow, but the simple facts are that Saddam had WMD in 1998 and was required to give up that WMD or face military action per UN resolutions 678, 687, and more recently 1441.

"Such an imminent threat that the WMD the Bush administration claimed could be launched within minutes are so far not to be found?"

Any country that has WMD and the means to deliver it can within minutes attack a neighboring country. Iraq had both in 1998 and failed in 2002 to show what happened to that massive stockpile documented in 1998. The failure to account for it is a material breech of Iraq's obligations and justification for war.

"The evidence used was based on old information, and anything supposedly gathered by recent intelligence has shown itself to be untrue."

"The fact that Saddam was found to be a threat 12 years ago does not impress me. The fact that Saddam had WMD in 1998 doesn't necessarily make him an imminent threat five years later. It was (and is) up to the administration to prove that invasion was justified. So far it has not."

This is simply false.

The 1991 Gulf WAR UN ceacefire agreement required IRAQ, not any other country, to prove it no longer had WMD! Saddam signed the agreement, so legally, even Iraq agrees that this is so.

The Justification for the invasion has always been Iraq's failure to account for the WMD it had in 1998.

Contrary to what some people might thing, 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells do not vanish into thin air like on Saturday Morning cartoons. Thats a hell of a lot of metal, and no matter what you do with it, it still exists in some form today, 4 and half years after the 1998 UN inspector report. Iraq is obligated to hand over this stuff if it is intact or show the remains of any destruction or disposal.

Iraq's failure to hand over this and other WMD or show the remains of its destruction is the justification for war. If Iraq wanted to avoid war, they were required to hand over the WMD from the 1998 lists or show the remains of its destruction. They did neither.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-14-2003, 10:56 AM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Re: so they blatantly lie and you dont care

Quote:
Originally posted by Red Ships of Scalla-Festa
so they blatantly lie and you dont care
No,
Jimmy crack corn and I don't care.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-15-2003, 11:48 AM   #98
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Jimmy on crack???
LOL


AAAHHH, back from Cleveland and refreshed to hash out this shit some more

Here's a letter to Condy-baby.

Demanding the Truth

By Rep. Henry Waxman
June 12, 2003

A June 10 letter to Condoleeza Rice from Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking member of the House Committee on Government Reform.


The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The White House
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Dr. Rice:


Since March 17, 2003, I have been trying without success to get a direct answer to one simple question: Why did President Bush cite forged evidence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in his State of the Union address?


Although you addressed this issue on Sunday on both Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulos, your comments did nothing to clarify this issue. In fact, your responses contradicted other known facts and raised a host of new questions.


During your interviews, you said the Bush Administration welcomes inquiries into this matter. Yesterday, The Washington Post also reported that Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet has agreed to provide "full documentation" of the intelligence information "in regards to Secretary Powell's comments, the president's comments and anybody else's comments." Consistent with these sentiments, I am writing to seek further information about this important matter.


Bush Administration Knowledge of Forgeries


The forged documents in question describe efforts by Iraq to obtain uranium from an African country, Niger. During your interviews over the weekend, you asserted that no doubts or suspicions about these efforts or the underlying documents were communicated to senior officials in the Bush Administration before the President's State of the Union address. For example, when you were asked about this issue on Meet the Press, you made the following statement:



We did not know at the time no one knew at the time, in our circles maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken.


Similarly, when you appeared on This Week, you repeated this statement, claiming that you made multiple inquiries of the intelligence agencies regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. You stated:



George, somebody, somebody down may have known. But I will tell you that when this issue was raised with the intelligence community... the intelligence community did not know at that time, or at levels that got to us, that this, that there were serious questions about this report.


Your claims, however, are directly contradicted by other evidence. Contrary to your assertion, senior Administration officials had serious doubts about the forged evidence well before the President's State of the Union address. For example, Greg Thielmann, Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State Department, told Newsweek last week that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) had concluded the documents were "garbage." As you surely know, INR is part of what you call "the intelligence community." It is headed by an Assistant Secretary of State, Carl Ford; it reports directly to the Secretary of State; and it was a full participant in the debate over Iraq's nuclear capabilities. According to Newsweek:



"When I saw that, it really blew me away," Thielmann told Newsweek. Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation. The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger. INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible - and made that point clear to Powell's office. As Thielmann read that the president had relied on these documents to report to the nation, he thought, "Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was, how did that get into the speech?"


Moreover, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has reported that the Vice President's office was aware of the fraudulent nature of the evidence as early as February 2002 - nearly a year before the President gave his State of the Union address. In his column, Mr. Kristof reported:



I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.


The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.... The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted - except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.


"It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.



When you were asked about Mr. Kristof's account, you did not deny his reporting. Instead, you conceded that "the Vice President's office may have asked for that report."


It is also clear that CIA officials doubted the evidence. The Washington Post reported on March 22 that CIA officials "communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence." The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that "the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001," when "the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand." The Los Angeles Times quoted a CIA official as saying: "We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information."


With all respect, this is not a situation like the pre-9/11 evidence that al-Qaeda was planning to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. When you were asked about this on May 17, 2002, you said:



As you might imagine... a lot of things are prepared within agencies. They're distributed internally, they're worked internally. It's unusual that anything like that would get to the president. He doesn't recall seeing anything. I don't recall seeing anything of this kind.


That answer may be given more deference when the evidence in question is known only by a field agent in an FBI bureau in Phoenix, Arizona, whose suspicions are not adequately understood by officials in Washington. But it is simply not credible here. Contrary to your public statements, senior officials in the intelligence community in Washington knew the forged evidence was unreliable before the President used the evidence in the State of the Union address.


Other Evidence


In addition to denying that senior officials were aware that the President was citing forged evidence, you also claimed (1) "there were also other sources that said that there were, the Iraqis were seeking yellowcake - uranium oxide - from Africa" and (2) "there were other attempts to get yellowcake from Africa."


This answer does not explain the President's statement in the State of the Union address. In his State of the Union address, the President referred specifically to the evidence from the British. He stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Presumably, the President would use the best available evidence in his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation. It would make no sense for him to cite forged evidence obtained from the British if, in fact, the United States had other reliable evidence that he could have cited.


Moreover, contrary to your assertion, there does not appear to be any other specific and credible evidence that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from an African country. The Administration has not provided any such evidence to me or my staff despite our repeated requests. To the contrary, the State Department wrote me that the "other source" of this claim was another Western European ally. But as the State Department acknowledged in its letter, "the second Western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the U.S. that was subsequently discredited."


The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also found no other evidence indicating that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Niger. The evidence in U.S. possession that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Niger was transmitted to the IAEA. After reviewing all the evidence provided by the United States, the IAEA reported: "we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Ultimately, the IAEA concluded: "these specific allegations are unfounded."


Questions


As the discussion above indicates, your answers on the Sunday talk shows conflict with other reports and raise many new issues. To help address these issues, I request answers to the following questions:


1. On Meet the Press, you said that "maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency" that the evidence cited by the President about Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Africa was suspect. Please identify the individual or individuals in the Administration who, prior to the President's State of the Union address, had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or the credibility of the claim.


2. Please identify any individuals in the Administration who, prior to the President's State of the Union address, were briefed or otherwise made aware that an individual or individuals in the Administration had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or the credibility of the claim.


3. On This Week, you said there was other evidence besides the forged evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa. Please provide this other evidence.


4. When you were asked about reports that Vice President Cheney sent a former ambassador to Niger to investigate the evidence, you stated "the Vice President's office may have asked for that report." In light of this comment, please address:


(a) Whether Vice President Cheney or his office requested an investigation into claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from Africa, and when any such request was made;


(b) Whether a current or former U.S. ambassador to Africa, or any other current or former government official or agent, traveled to Niger or otherwise investigated claims that Iraq may have attempted to obtain nuclear material from Niger; and


(c) What conclusions or findings, if any, were reported to the Vice President, his office, or other U.S. officials as a result of the investigation, and when any such conclusions or findings were reported.


Conclusion


On Sunday, you stated that "there is now a lot of revisionism that says, there was disagreement on this data point, or disagreement on that data point." I disagree strongly with this characterization. I am not raising questions about the validity of an isolated "data point," and the issue is not whether the war in Iraq was justified or not.


What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address? This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts.


Thank you for your assistance in this matter.


Sincerely,


Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 12:33 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:40 PM
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 06-29-2003, 08:38 AM   #100
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Sting:
One interesting quote from Bernard Mannes Baruch (1870-1965) which summs up what i think about the US "proofs" before they started the war: (freely retranslated from german)

"Every man has the right to have its own opinion, but noone has the right to present false facts.

Read the statement from your deputy defence secretary here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm

Also a high representative from G.B. told the press that it might have been wrong to present the faked documents to the public. (can't find the document yet, if you want to i can continue to search

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-14-2003, 08:02 PM   #101
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:40 PM
An interesting article surfaced today. It is to President Bush from a group of Inteligence officers. Please read before commenting. Thanks.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16398

"I will bring honor to the process and honor to the office I seek. I will remind Al Gore that Americans do not want a White House where there is 'no controlling legal authority.' I will repair the broken bonds of trust between Americans and their government."
George W. Bush, March 7, 2000 ((taken from Josh Marshall's Talkingpointsmemo.com weblog))

This is the main gist of their memorandum:

"Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired intelligence agents, have written a memorandum to President Bush pointing the finger directly at the Vice President in the Niger forgery flap and calling for his resignation. ("Sad to say, it is equally clear that your vice president led this campaign of deceit. This was no case of petty corruption of the kind that forced Vice President Spiro Agnew's resignation. This was a matter of war and peace. Thousands have died. There is no end in sight.")

From the Chrisitian Science Monitor
"Liz Marlantes in the Christian Science Monitor (Political arc of a faulty prewar claim) offers this summary of where we may be heading:



"Democrats are attacking the president's reliance on flawed evidence and his subsequent efforts to shift the blame elsewhere to try to undercut his image as a straight shooter, one of his greatest political strengths. But even if the public largely accepts that the president simply made an honest mistake, the incident may feed an already growing belief that the administration, whether intentionally or not, overestimated the Iraqi weapons threat in the run up to war. Particularly as the instability in Iraq continues, with more and more US troops losing their lives and no weapons of mass destruction yet found, more Americans may begin to question whether the war was worth it and whether the president led the nation on an appropriate course...."

The group has in it's ranks:

"I received today the following memorandum to the President from Ray McGovern, one of three members of the steering committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. It's a fascinating statement from that group. McGovern is a 27 year veteran from the analysis ranks of the CIA. Here's McGovern's description of VIPS: "This is a group of 30 retired senior intelligence officers formed in January of 2003 to keep watch on the use/abuse of intelligence primarily regarding Iraq. Most of us are from the analytic ranks of the CIA, but we have strong representation from the operations officers as well and we are truly an intelligence community body inasmuch as retired officers from State Department Intelligence, Defense Intelligence, Army Intelligence and the FBI are also members."

These are the groups recommendations:
Recommendation #1


We recommend that you call an abrupt halt to attempts to prove Vice President Cheney "not guilty." His role has been so transparent that such attempts will only erode further your own credibility. Equally pernicious, from our perspective, is the likelihood that intelligence analysts will conclude that the way to success is to acquiesce in the cooking of their judgments, since those above them will not be held accountable. We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney's immediate resignation.

Recommendation #2


We repeat, with an additional sense of urgency, the recommendation in our last memorandum to you (May 1) that you appoint Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Chair of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to head up an independent investigation into the use/abuse of intelligence on Iraq.

Recommendation #3


We recommend that you immediately invite the UN inspectors back into Iraq. This would go a long way toward refurbishing your credibility. Equally important, it would help sort out the lessons learned for the intelligence community and be an invaluable help to an investigation of the kind we have suggested you direct Gen. Scowcroft to lead.

They have some good ideas. I think regardless of my dislike of this admin., our reputation in the world is at stake.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 01:33 AM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Well, this group of 30 senior retired intelligence experts are a tiny fraction of the thousands of retired intelligence experts out there that support the President strongly, or in no way feel compelled to such a biased group of former officials. If they are really unbiased, they are very poor at writing a report that would show that.

They accuse the President of lies, yet show no hard evidence to support these accusations.

The Majority of the evidence the President used came from the UN inspectors final report in 1998. The disarmament process of Iraq was not over at all at that point. Inspectors were finally able to get back into Iraq because of Bush's work (something absent from the Intels report, again proving their political bias). Once back in the country, it was incumbent upon SADDAM, not Bush, to show what happened to the WMD that he had in 1998. Saddam claimed that he destroyed the WMD but showed not evidence of that. Thats unacceptable and a material breech of UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Terms. Thats why military action was necessary, Saddam's failure to cooperate.

UN resolution 1483 was passed 15-0 and recognizes the USA, UK and Australia as the "Authority" in Iraq.

These facts are noticebly absent from anything these retired intelligence officials had to say, further indicating in my opinion, their lack of objectivity and strong political bias.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 07:10 AM   #103
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Then an independant commission should be formed to clear up the issue.

Sadaam failure to cooperate was not the reasons Bush & Co used to justify the war therefore that point is moot.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 08:16 AM   #104
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:40 PM
From NY Times OP/ED

Quote:
Pattern of Corruption
By PAUL KRUGMAN

More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?

How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence.

Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from "people around the White House" urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined "Plans for Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

But an honest intelligence assessment would have raised questions about why we were going after a country that hadn't attacked us. It would also have suggested the strong possibility that an invasion of Iraq would hurt, not help, U.S. security.

So the Iraq hawks set out to corrupt the process of intelligence assessment. On one side, nobody was held accountable for the failure to predict or prevent 9/11; on the other side, top intelligence officials were expected to support the case for an Iraq war.

The story of how the threat from Iraq's alleged W.M.D.'s was hyped is now, finally, coming out. But let's not forget the persistent claim that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, which allowed the hawks to pretend that the Iraq war had something to do with fighting terrorism.

As Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence official, said last week, U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. Yet administration officials continually asserted such a connection, even as they suppressed evidence showing real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia.

And during the run-up to war, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was willing to provide cover for his bosses just as he did last weekend. In an October 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he made what looked like an assertion that there really were meaningful connections between Saddam and Osama. Read closely, the letter is evasive, but it served the administration's purpose.

What about the risk that an invasion of Iraq would weaken America's security? Warnings from military experts that an extended postwar occupation might severely strain U.S. forces have proved precisely on the mark. But the hawks prevented any consideration of this possibility. Before the war, one official told Newsweek that the occupation might last no more than 30 to 60 days.

It gets worse. Knight Ridder newspapers report that a "small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department" were sure that their favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, could easily be installed in power. They were able to prevent skeptics from getting a hearing and they had no backup plan when efforts to anoint Mr. Chalabi, a millionaire businessman, degenerated into farce.

So who will be held accountable? Mr. Tenet betrayed his office by tailoring statements to reflect the interests of his political masters, rather than the assessments of his staff but that's not why he may soon be fired. Yesterday USA Today reported that "some in the Bush administration are arguing privately for a C.I.A. director who will be unquestioningly loyal to the White House as committees demand documents and call witnesses."

Not that the committees are likely to press very hard: Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, seems more concerned about protecting his party's leader than protecting the country. "What concerns me most," he says, is "what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the C.I.A. in an effort to discredit the president."

In short, those who politicized intelligence in order to lead us into war, at the expense of national security, hope to cover their tracks by corrupting the system even further.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 02:48 PM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Scarletwine,

"Sadaam failure to cooperate was not the reasons Bush & Co used to justify the war therefore that point is moot."

Thats false! If you remember Bush's speech to the United Nations in September 2002, he stated that Iraq's failure to comply with 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations, was the reason military action might be necessary.

Resolution 1441 was about giving SADDAM, "one last chance" to cooperate. The UN peaceful inspections process, can only work if SADDAM cooperates. SADDAM never fully cooperated. SADDAM never gave up or showed the remains of the WMD that he had in 1998. This was the central point of the Bush Administration the whole time UN inspectors were in Iraq in 2002-2003. It was not up to inspectors to search and find WMD, it was up to SADDAM to role out the WMD and for the inspectors to verify and destroy it or verify the remains of the previous destruction of WMD if Saddam had actually destroyed it. In order for that to happen, Saddam has to cooperate in the process.

Colin Powell often said : "It is not incumbent upon the USA to prove that SADDAM has weapons of Mass destruction, it is incumbent upon SADDAM to prove that he does not have weapons of Mass Destruction"

Saddam failed what he was required to do. He never complied with any of the 17 resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules that he was in violation of. That is the administrations case in a nutshell, despite any of the fantasy theory's democrats want to try to make into a campaign slogan for 2004.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 04:40 PM.


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