Bush Kerry

100gSoma

It would be a horrible disservice to elect that monkey bush again...It's all a pack of lies. The whole thing...

1st June 2003

Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said in a video teleconference from his headquarters in southern Iraq that he was convinced before and during the war that at least some Republican Guard units had been provided with chemical weapons.

"It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites," he told reporters at the Pentagon.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," he added. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

Conway added that it was too soon to say whether this amounted to a U.S. intelligence failure or whether it meant that the Bush administration had been wrong about Iraq's weapons programs.

GuanYin

100gSoma wrote:

It would be a horrible disservice to elect that monkey bush again...It's all a pack of lies. The whole thing...

1st June 2003

Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said in a video teleconference from his headquarters in southern Iraq that he was convinced before and during the war that at least some Republican Guard units had been provided with chemical weapons.

"It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites," he told reporters at the Pentagon.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," he added. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

Conway added that it was too soon to say whether this amounted to a U.S. intelligence failure or whether it meant that the Bush administration had been wrong about Iraq's weapons programs.

You mean it was all a lie? All of it? There were no weapons of mass destruction? Iraq aren't linked to Al Queda? That means all the death and destruction could have been avoided, all those lives lost or ruined were for nothing? I'm shocked!

But that would mean Britain were in on it too? The implications of this are huge! What this suggests is that the US and UK lied to the entire world in its reasons to go to war in Iraq and actually had some other self serving purpose.
If this is true, it is terrible news for the rest of the free world, to think that the man in charge of the most powerful state in the world could act in such a manner is almost unthinkable.

Really, I won't be living under a rock again for 3 years if I'm going to miss stuff like this developing..... *









*Warning:May contain sarcasm.

chill

Well I am not going to accuse anyone here of lying... why ? because there is a difference between lying .... being wrong... and being incompetent.

US intelligence and British intelligence, among many others, were clearly and evidently wrong. That is accepted fact.

Whether Bush and Blair knew this is complete and utter conjecture, while all the evidence available indicates they relied on their intelligence people - as every president and prime minister has done for centuries. Indeed if they had ignored their intelligence people and WMD had been used on Europe by Saddam... the same people would be attempting to have them tried for mass murder.

It would be more constructive and rational for people to follow the incompetence trail than try to plough a load of 'lying' hyperbole. Also it would be more convincing if we accepted the emerging fact that Saddam was psychotic in his efforts to convince everyone and every intelligence agancy that he indeed had WMD when he now appears not to have had it - or at least he only had small quantities that were spirited away during the war.

These intelligencies agencies have gotten away with incredible incompetence because so many loud people allowed themselves to be diverted by their political prejudice instead of focussing on the real cause.

bonkey

chill wrote:

Well I am not going to accuse anyone here of lying... why ? because there is a difference between lying .... being wrong... and being incompetent.

Fair point.

US intelligence and British intelligence, among many others, were clearly and evidently wrong. That is accepted fact.

Agreed/

Whether Bush and Blair knew this is complete and utter conjecture, while all the evidence available indicates they relied on their intelligence people - as every president and prime minister has done for centuries.

Not entirely.

Bush put in place a quasi-autonomous intelligence "think-tank", did he not, which he used as his primary source of intelligence-based-decision making, superceding the roles that established authorities like the CIA etc. had.

Also, there has been an awful lot of indications that teh CIA etc. did try to couch their words in uncertainty (cause they weren't certain), but were basically forced to come down on one side or another.

Add to that the various insider books/interviews/etc. which have said that Bush & co. were planning an invasion of Iraq long before Sep 11. and were really just looking for the right time to implement it.....

Indeed if they had ignored their intelligence people and WMD had been used on Europe by Saddam... the same people would be attempting to have them tried for mass murder.

Yes, but the fact remains that the Intelligence community have made every noise they can to clarify that they were not sure, while Bush made every noise he could to make it seem like there was no doubt. Perhaps thats a president's job....but part of the job is accepting that when you get a call disastrously wrong, you admit it and take your lumps.....not try and make excuses and wiggle out of all responsibility.

Like you said...if Bush said "no weapons" and there were, and US/EU/Israel got attacked with them.....how many people would have said "well, Bush got bad information....its not his fault"??? On the other hand, because its Iraqis and not US/EU/Israeli citizens who get to bear the horrors of his miscall (I'll be charitable and call it no more than that), many people seem to project it as a case of "well, he had good intentions and bad information, and sure what can you do".

It would be more constructive and rational for people to follow the incompetence trail than try to plough a load of 'lying' hyperbole.

I agree fully. The mass media in particular have been far too willing to allow the US Adminstration to decide when the buck should stop with someone else, and when it shouldn't.

Also it would be more convincing if we accepted the emerging fact that Saddam was psychotic in his efforts to convince everyone and every intelligence agancy that he indeed had WMD when he now appears not to have had it - or at least he only had small quantities that were spirited away during the war.

Not sure I'd agree with that one. Looking at the reality of it :

- Country is developing nuclear weapons / other WMDs == really really bad thing to be opposed.
- Country has nuclear weapons / other WMDs == country you need to treat with kid gloves.

Saddam - regardless of his monstrosity - was no idiot. He knew his best chance of preventing an attack was to convince people he was in a stronger military position than he was. I'd go so far as to say that the decision to attack was predicated on the belief that he was bluffing, and that there were no deployable WMDs (or at most a small amount of outdated chemical ones of limited use on a battlefield)

These intelligencies agencies have gotten away with incredible incompetence because so many loud people allowed themselves to be diverted by their political prejudice instead of focussing on the real cause.

I would have siad that the intelligence agencies have borne the brunt of whatever blame hasn't been done away with via commissions, internal studies, and all the rest of it. The only group who have singularly avoided getting stuck with any blame for the monumental cock-ups is the one who :

1) Determines the structure of the intelligence communities
2) Is responsible for the interoperation of said communities
3) Is responsible for making the serious decisions to act based on the information from these communities
and
4) Is ultimately where the buck is supposed to stop.

You want to blame the CIA? I agree....they did a **** job.
As did their boss. Of the two, however, only one had the power to actually correct the known problems the intelligence community was facing. He didn't....he took their best guess, downplayed their uncertainty, overplayed their responsibility, and has emerged more-or-less clean from the whole thing.

FFS - the last time I heard Bush asked if he had made any mistakes in his Presidency, he said no. That alone is - for me - a sign of supreme arrogance and/or incompetence. The man doesn't ahve the ability to recognise and/or admit that he - like everyone else - is human and fallible.

jc

chill

Good reply

bonkey wrote:

Not entirely.

Bush put in place a quasi-autonomous intelligence "think-tank", did he not, which he used as his primary source of intelligence-based-decision making, superceding the roles that established authorities like the CIA etc. had.

yes... up to a point...

Also, there has been an awful lot of indications that teh CIA etc. did try to couch their words in uncertainty (cause they weren't certain), but were basically forced to come down on one side or another.

No... way... I don't buy this stuff. It smells WAY too much of hindsight in the intelligence community trying to cover their asses. They were sure of their 'facts' and even let Powell make a monstrous fool of himself at the UN.

Add to that the various insider books/interviews/etc. which have said that Bush & co. were planning an invasion of Iraq long before Sep 11. and were really just looking for the right time to implement it.....

Also true... but it doesn't stick Bush for lying ! only for having his own agenda.
It was the incompetence (or worse) of the intelligence community that facilitated this desire.
[Don't get me wrong - I am NOT defending Bush... who I actually do think is al liar... :rolleyes: just not in this case ]

Yes, but the fact remains that the Intelligence community have made every noise they can to clarify that they were not sure, while Bush made every noise he could to make it seem like there was no doubt. Perhaps thats a president's job....but part of the job is accepting that when you get a call disastrously wrong, you admit it and take your lumps.....not try and make excuses and wiggle out of all responsibility.

Agreed. He is a piece of Sh*t....and the sooner he is consigned to a minor page in history the better.

Saddam - regardless of his monstrosity - was no idiot. He knew his best chance of preventing an attack was to convince people he was in a stronger military position than he was. I'd go so far as to say that the decision to attack was predicated on the belief that he was bluffing, and that there were no deployable WMDs (or at most a small amount of outdated chemical ones of limited use on a battlefield)

I know this begs for ridicule from some .... but I support the flip side... Saddam WANTED to be attacked. This is what he worked for for the last twenty years. If he didn't want to be attacked then he would have disarmed and played ball.
I think his psychotic mind had a plan where he would be atacked like in the first Desert Storm... and win out in the end. He was milking the OilForFood programme for Billions, and the sanctions guarenteed his absolute power and status in the Middle East. He did not anticipate the black/white attitude of Bush's mindset or his success at convincing everyone of his WMD capability.

I would have siad that the intelligence agencies have borne the brunt of whatever blame hasn't been done away with via commissions, internal studies, and all the rest of it.

I just don't see how you can say that ..... who has been fired ? where is the blood on the floor ? All I see is a bit of reorganisation and sideways movement...

The only group who have singularly avoided getting stuck with any blame for the monumental cock-ups is the one who :
..snip..
4) Is ultimately where the buck is supposed to stop.

Which flies in the face of the reality that most fo the world blames Bush for lying.... the truth is he is the one taking the blame... if not ADMITTING it

You want to blame the CIA? I agree....they did a **** job.
As did their boss. Of the two, however, only one had the power to actually correct the known problems the intelligence community was facing. He didn't....he took their best guess, downplayed their uncertainty, overplayed their responsibility, and has emerged more-or-less clean from the whole thing.

Not in the eyes of 50% of the US population and 80% of the world's population... who almost never balme the CIA or FBI... only Bush.

GospelGroupie

Err.... are we not being a bit quick to determine that there are no WMDs in Iraq? Iraq is 10 times the size of Ireland and we've been looking for the IRA arms dumps in this tiny island for 30 years without success. They have piles of sand to bury the stuff under. Is that not beyond the realms of possibility, just a suggestion! Regards,
Brian

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

chill

GospelGroupie wrote:

Err.... are we not being a bit quick to determine that there are no WMDs in Iraq? Iraq is 10 times the size of Ireland and we've been looking for the IRA arms dumps in this tiny island for 30 years without success. They have piles of sand to bury the stuff under. Is that not beyond the realms of possibility, just a suggestion! Regards,
Brian

Absolutely right... up to a point. There is still a chance of finding some of their stuff. But it is looking increasingly likely that Saddam had a lot less than he let on, and that what he did have was moved swiftly back from the fighting and into Syria before the Allies complete their victory.
It is most certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that there is a secret bunker out there in the sands with stuff in it. As you say it a hell of a big country... with very few people in it and vast desert lands to hide stuff.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

chill wrote:

Not in the eyes of 50% of the US population and 80% of the world's population... who almost never balme the CIA or FBI... only Bush.

I guess the Office of Special Plans was a CIA or FBI brainchild?

Anyone remember the "missile gap"?

Victor

GospelGroupie wrote:

Iraq is 10 times the size of Ireland

Iraq is only about 5* times the size of Ireland and given the remoteness of some of the desert (and it would be quite obvious "Ooh look someone drove 50km across the desert, dug a hole and drove back again, and my ground penetrating radar gadget indicates a void") and the hostility of some of the opposition groups, it would have been difficult to store the weapons in much of the country. Whereas in Ireland, there could be many a bunker under a hay shed.

GospelGroupie wrote:

Iraq is 10 times the size of Ireland and we've been looking for the IRA arms dumps in this tiny island for 30 years without success.

Actually quite a few IRA arms dumps have been found and many of the remaining one are considered "comprimised" by the Provisionals (they know the authorities have found them, but the authorities aren't out to rock the boat by declaring or confirming this).


* Iraq Area total: 437,072 sq km
Ireland (republic) Area total: 70,280 sq km
Northern Ireland Area total: 14,125 sq km

Ratio 6.22:1 (republic only) - 5.18:1 (island)

dahamsta

Of course there's also the fact that Ireland doesn't have 15,000 troops scouring the country for them. (15,000 would be 1/10th of the force in Iraq.)

adam