Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job'

[STING2]

Try copying these URLs into your browser, Sting. That ought to work even if you're not able to access links at the moment.

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_rice.htm

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/selected_statements_speaker_cheney.htm

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.

 

[hiphop]

go reread this thread.

http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74278&perpage=40&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, i?m tired of compiling that list.

most of the Americans know that it?s 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 didn?t. Bush still is not able of protecting the lives of Americans. Don?t forget that. The administration can?t guarantee you that tomorrow you won?t 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 I?ve been proven right - you just can?t 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 don?t 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 don?t give a fuck.

That?s sad enough.

 

[verte76]

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.

 

[U2girl]

sigh

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]

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]

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]

Re: sigh

.

 

[STING2]

go reread this thread.

http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74278&perpage=40&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, i?m tired of compiling that list.

most of the Americans know that it?s 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 didn?t. Bush still is not able of protecting the lives of Americans. Don?t forget that. The administration can?t guarantee you that tomorrow you won?t 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 I?ve been proven right - you just can?t 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 don?t 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 don?t give a fuck.

That?s 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]

Re: sigh

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]

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]

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.

 

[ThatGuy]

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.

?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.

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[hiphop]

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 that?s 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 there?s a big chance intelligence either doesn?t have the right info or doesn?t 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, there?s 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 can?t 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 wouldn?t 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 didn?t 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]

As a side note, I think someone of (British?) intelligence has to be held accountable for illegally spying Kofi Annan. Being European, for me that?s 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/story/0,3604,889641,00.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]

Did we bug Kofi Annan?

Ewen MacAskill, Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday February 27, 2004
The Guardian

The UN expressed outrage yesterday after an extraordinary claim by the former cabinet minister Clare Short that British intelligence services were involved in bugging the private office of its secretary general, Kofi Annan.

Mr Annan's team, after speaking to the British ambassador at the UN, launched an inquiry into the legal implications of the alleged bugging.

"We want this action to stop, if indeed it has been carried out," said Mr Annan's spokesman, Fred Eckhard. "It is not good for the United Nations' work and it is illegal."

It is believed to be unprecedented for covert action to have been taken against the UN secretary general.

Ms Short, the former international development secretary, delivered her blow to Tony Blair while Downing Street was still reeling from the collapse of the court case against Katharine Gun, the GCHQ officer-turned-whistleblower.

She claimed that the intelligence services had been bugging Mr Annan's private phone for years, especially in the pivotal period in the run-up to the Iraq war last year. She said she had seen the transcripts.

Mr Blair, at his monthly Downing Street press conference, accused her of behaving irresponsibly but did not deny the allegation. He claimed that he could not comment out of duty to protect the intelligence services.

Ms Short said later: "What is the PM going to say? Either he has to say it's true we are bugging Kofi Annan's office, which he doesn't want to say, or he's got to say it's not true and he'd be telling a lie, or he's got to say something pompous about national security.

"There is no British national security involved in revealing that Kofi Annan's private phone calls have been improperly revealed and there is no danger to anyone working in the British security services by making this public.

"What will happen is it will stop and Kofi Annan will have the privacy and respect he should have."

Her allegation wrecked Mr Blair's press conference, which he had hoped would be a showcase for a new initiative on Africa. Ms Short's claim was a particular embarrassment to him, given that he described Mr Annan as a personal friend.

Apparently furious, he said the "intelligence services were performing a vital task for our country and it really is the height of irresponsibility to expose them to this kind of scrutiny and questioning in a way that can do this country no good".

The combination of Ms Short's allegation and the collapse of the court case against Ms Gun has left the Official Secrets Act in tatters.

The government is to conduct a cross-departmental review to see if the legislation can be tightened to prevent further leaks. Its scale is not yet clear, and it may ultimately prove fruitless.

Mr Annan's officials opted yesterday to present a relatively calm exterior in public, but behind the scenes they were raging.

One UN official described the revelation as "outrageous".

Another said: "We're looking at the legal side, whether intercepting by satellite is as illegal as bugging under the Vienna convention.

"The initial reaction of the legal counsel was that it's against civil, criminal and international law.

"But we're still going over the books."

Mr Eckhard said Mr Annan's office was regularly checked for bugs but he did not say whether anything had been found.

Ms Short chose to unleash her latest attack on Mr Blair on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the same forum that led to the allegation of Downing Street tampering with Iraq intelligence and the Hutton inquiry.

Asked whether Britain was involved in the bugging, she said: "Yes, absolutely." But in later interviews, she did not specify whether the intelligence gathering had been conducted by US or British agents.

Any bugging would have probably been conducted by US agents, given that New York is on the doorstep of the US national security agency.

Some cabinet ministers would like to discipline Ms Short for her repeated outbursts against the prime minister's integrity, but as she admitted yesterday, she is acting as a free agent. "I am not trembling in my shoes," she said.

 

[hiphop]

May 19, 2003

A Letter to Kofi Annan
The Missing Evidence
by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

The Honorable Kofi Annan,
Secretary General The United Nations
(via fax)

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

We are former intelligence officials who have served many years at senior levels of the US intelligence community. As the role of intelligence on Iraq assumed critical importance over the past several months, we established Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) as a collegial body to monitor the unfolding of events. Our first analytic paper was a same-day commentary on Secretary of State Colin Powell's performance at the UN Security Council on February 5. Six papers on related subjects have now been issued, three of which have taken the form of Memoranda for the President. We have had no response from the White House.

We turn to you now because it has become inescapably clear that the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains a most urgent one. We see no viable alternative to renewed UN involvement if this key issue is to be dealt with effectively. This letter is an appeal to you and Security Council members to pursue that objective with a renewed sense of urgency.

As we applied the rigorous evidentiary standards of professional intelligence analysis over recent months, we were inclined to place reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the "unconfirmed" category. However, the assertions of President George W. Bush and his senior advisers were so categorical--and their assurances so insistent--that it seemed reasonable to assume that they were in possession of more compelling evidence than that which had been made public, and that prudence therefore dictated giving them the benefit of the doubt. In doing so we found ourselves in step with most Americans, including some who are highly experienced in these matters--former UN inspectors David Albright and Jonathan Tucker, for example.

We find it deeply troubling, therefore, that two months after US and British forces invaded Iraq no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Statements by those close to the Bush administration have served to compound the confusion. On April 10, for example, Defense Policy Board member (and former Deputy US Representative to the UN), Kenneth Adelman, predicted that such weapons would be found "pretty soon, in the next five days." He now concedes that the situation is "very strange," and suggests that Saddam Hussein may have launched "a massive disinformation campaign to make the world think he was violating international norms, and he may not have been."

US Gen. Tommy Franks has said the search for weapons of mass destruction may take a year. We assume that the international community will find this unacceptable.

It became painfully obvious in the weeks following the invasion of Iraq that the US did not know the location of any weapons of mass destruction. Nor, at the outset, was the US able to pinpoint and take into custody those Iraqis who do know. This has now changed. A former chief UN inspector for weapons in Iraq noted last week that the US now has in custody four top Iraqi officials who "know exactly what the facts are," adding, "We need to know what they are saying."

Intelligence analysts rarely confess to being perplexed. We confess. We are perplexed at the US refusal to permit the return of UN inspectors to Iraq.

From an intelligence point of view, Washington's decision to bar the very people with the international mandate, the unique experience, and the credibility to undertake a serious search for weapons of mass destruction defies logic. UN inspectors know Iraq, know the weaponry in question, know the Iraqi scientists/engineers who have been involved, know how the necessary materials are procured and processed; in short, they have precisely the expertise required. Barton Gellman's detailed account of the abortive two-month search by US forces in Iraq ("Odyssey of Frustration," in yesterday's Washington Post) should remove any lingering doubt that the US needs all the help it can get. We are particularly troubled by reports of looting and thefts at Iraqi nuclear facilities.

UN prerogatives regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq offer a way out of this mire. Security Council resolutions requiring that UN inspectors certify that Iraq is free of such weapons before economic sanctions can be lifted can continue to play an important role. Indeed, it would be folly to attempt to resume normal economic activity while weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for. Just last week the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, warned that such weapons may still be in the hands of Iraqi "special units."

The draft Security Council resolution being promoted by the US, however, makes no reference to the mandated UN role in weapons certification. Thus, at the Security Council deliberations this week, the stakes--for the UN, for the spread of weapons of mass destruction, for the international community as a whole, and for the Middle East in particular--could not be higher.

It is understandable that you and other senior UN officials are unwilling to take at face value the intelligence reporting offered by the US on Iraq, particularly since the detailed assertions by Secretary Powell on February 5, by and large, have not withstood close scrutiny. Particularly distressing to us as intelligence professionals has been the revelation that some of the most important evidence cited by Secretary Powell, and by the president himself, was based on forged documents.

You will agree, certainly, that this is a starkly different state of affairs than that which obtained during the Cuban missile crisis 41 years ago. Then war was averted through peaceful means partly because of widespread trust in the integrity of US intelligence collection and analysis. Trust is a fragile commodity. The success of diplomacy leans heavily on it. If trust is squandered, all suffer.

Today, as veteran intelligence officials, we cannot stand by in silence as US credibility is in danger of being frittered away. This will be the inevitable result if previous US government assertions based on "solid intelligence" concerning the existence of serviceable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remain without credible substantiation.

Only the return of UN inspectors to Iraq can determine on behalf of the entire international community the credibility of the intelligence upon which the US/UK invasion of Iraq was based. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to continue working toward that end. The restoration of an internationally sanctioned inspection and verification regime would be a giant step toward resolving lingering ambiguities. Equally important, it would ensure a stable foundation for the security of the next government in Iraq.

We have found it somewhat awkward to write you in this vein, but the urgency of the situation leaves us no alternative. We take no joy in sharing our confusion over our government's policies.

We appreciate your efforts and those of other member states to carry out the UN's mandate on Iraq and to assert UN prerogatives. The long-term credibility and role of the UN will be strengthened as you redouble your efforts to meet this formidable challenge.

We shall fax copies of this letter to the current members of the Security Council, including the US delegation.

Respectfully yours,

Kathleen McGrath Christison, Santa Fe, NM
William Christison, Santa Fe, NM
David MacMichael, Linden, VA
Raymond McGovern, Arlington, VA

Steering Group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

 

[STING2]

If that?s 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 there?s a big chance intelligence either doesn?t have the right info or doesn?t 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, there?s 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 can?t 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 wouldn?t 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 didn?t 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?"

The Criteria for military action against Saddam is very clear and is laid down by the United Nations resolutions. Saddam was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Saddam failed to comply with 17 United Nations resolutions all passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

It is a fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm as required by the United Nations. In light of that fact and in compliance with multiple UN resolutions, military force was used to insure the verifiably disarmament of Saddam.

The Presidents central case for the use of military force is NOT some intelligence finding from the CIA or NSA, but Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD.

The fact that Saddam had failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD is a fact. The United Nations new this could happen in the future which is why it gave member states the authorization to enforce the resolutions with military force if Saddam failed to comply.

All opinion polls with the US public show that a majority believed military action was the right course of action to take. Today, one year after the war, the majority of the US public still feels that removing Saddam was the right course of action. If the US public does not like something a politician does, the next election is always around the corner. A government could not function if it had to have the entire public vote on every action. It would be impossible to properly defend the country if the President had to have the whole country vote on whether they could use military force or not.

This is why we have elections for a Congress and President. Every two years, there are elections to the US House of Representitives and every 6 years to the US Senate. The President is up for election every 4 years. Any President or Congressman who has abused their powers can be impeached and removed from office before the next election if the public feels that it is warented.

Public opinion is always monitered every week and tracked by elected representitives constantly.


In reference again to you paragraph about Rumsfeld, it was a fact that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM. That was the President's central case for the use of military force against Iraq. The energy that comes from the Middle East is vital to the whole planet, not just Americans. Making sure that it is secure benefits the whole world.

The war in Iraq did not change what the United States already plans to invest in defense spending, aside from the cost of the war itself.

The United Nations has passed three different resolutions that approve of the use of Military force against Saddam. The United Nations has also passed three different resolutions approving the occupation.

The Security situation in the Persian Gulf in regards to threats to global energy supply and threats from WMD have never been better than now, with the removal of Saddam. Already, a majority of Iraqi citizens say that life now is better than it was before the war. No one can guarantee anything, but in 5 years time, its more likely than not, that conditions in Iraq and the rest of the middle east, except maybe Israel/Palistine, will be better than they are today. Political and Economic development take time though so naturally there will still be problems that those who opposed the removal of Saddam can point to. But as time goes by, those problems will become less in number. In 25 years, Iraq will probably be a full fledged democracy with one of the highest standards of living if not the highest, in the region, provided that the Coalition continues the current process of development.

The administration has yet to Lie about anything. A Lie is knowingly saying something that is false. There is no irrifutable evidence that this administration has even done this once. I think its time that critics re-examine their definitions of loosely used words as well as applying similar criteria for evidence and proof in regards to their charges against officials that they so often attempt to hold politicians by.

 

[Diemen]

Right, so it was a fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm.

However, what the Bush administration used as a very important factor in trying to persuade everyone that we should invade Iraq, was FALSE information about chemical weapons bunkers and imminent nuclear capability.

Now even if Colin Powell believed the information he was presenting to the UN and the world to be true, that information turned out to be false, and I think it would be nice if someone from the Bush administration acknowledged that fact and maybe (and boy this is really stretching it), just maybe apologized to the American people and the global community for presenting inaccurate information as fact before they actually had the chance to verify that information.

This is not about whether or not having Saddam out of power is a good thing. It's about owning up to your mistakes.

 

[STING2]

Right, so it was a fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm.

However, what the Bush administration used as a very important factor in trying to persuade everyone that we should invade Iraq, was FALSE information about chemical weapons bunkers and imminent nuclear capability.

Now even if Colin Powell believed the information he was presenting to the UN and the world to be true, that information turned out to be false, and I think it would be nice if someone from the Bush administration acknowledged that fact and maybe (and boy this is really stretching it), just maybe apologized to the American people and the global community for presenting inaccurate information as fact before they actually had the chance to verify that information.

This is not about whether or not having Saddam out of power is a good thing. It's about owning up to your mistakes.

The Bush administration used some intelligence information as a supporting factor to its central case for war which was the verifiable disarmament of Saddam. Such intelligence will ALWAYS have some things which later turn out to not be accurate. This is definitely more often the case when dealing with WMD which easy to move, hide and conceal.

The only thing about the intelligence information that has turned out not to be accurate is the location of the WMD. Where the WMD currently is and in what state or condition it is in, is still not known. It is pointless to apologize for something that was not a mistake but simply the best intelligence available at the time. Most intelligence on a daily basis turns out to be wrong or not entirely accurate. Thats the nature of intelligence. The basis for war was Saddam's verifiable disarmament of all WMD, not intelligence that in the past had failed to determine that Saddam was only a year away from developing a Nuclear Weapon back in 1991.

It would have been a mistake not to include the best intelligence had to offer about what Saddam had or did not have as a supporting factor to the central case for war which was the Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Now even if Colin Powell believed the information he was presenting to the UN and the world to be true, that information turned out to be false, and I think it would be nice if someone from the Bush administration acknowledged that fact and maybe (and boy this is really stretching it), just maybe apologized to the American people and the global community for presenting inaccurate information as fact before they actually had the chance to verify that information.

Exactly. They don't have to say they lied, they don't have to say they were intentionally misleading people (however much many people may believe this). They just need to stand up and say "we're sorry, we were mistaken." I think there are many people who would have a lot more respect for this administration if they just had the humility to admit they were wrong on this occassion.

 

[nbcrusader]

Was Clarke really on the ball?

Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress ? 45,000 words long ? makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.
The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book.
Miss Rice, who will testify publicly Thursday before the commission investigating the Bush and Clinton administrations' actions before the September 11 attacks, was criticized last week for planning a speech for September 11, 2001, that called a national missile-defense system a leading security priority.
President Bush yesterday denied the accusation that his administration had made dealing with al Qaeda a low priority.