Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: just a friendly reminder

  1. #1
    -there are no WMD stockpiles in Iraq

    the question begs

    who is to blame?

    intelligence? white house?

    --

    seriously im not trying to start another pissing contest...

    but the American people deserve to know how this could have happened.

    who's head rolls for this error - Tenet? Cheney? Bush?

    ---

    in light of the PNAC doctrine i blame Cheney (and Wolfy) more than any other single parties.

    thoughts?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    It's far more complex than that, Bit. Every intelligence agency in the entire world drew the same conclusions - the UN, France, Germany, Russia, Israel, Britain, the US (including the previous administratio). Apparently all of them were wrong.

    The question is - how could they have been so wrong about something so crucial?


    If you can get past the obvious partisanship from the author and the town hall address, this is a decent article:

    [url=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040130.shtml]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charles...k20040130.shtml[/url]


    If you remember prio to the war, the disagreement was largely procedural and not substantive. Meaning, HOW should we disarm Hussein, force or continued inspections? Not one opponent suggested that Saddam didn't have WMD. And what's more, we still know he had stockpiles that were unaccounted for and that remain unaccounted for to this day.

    The intel of EVERY western nation is going to take a hit on this. We need to increase funding and organize things much better, that is a fact...especially in light of the current climate of terror.

    The notion that Bush "lied" is so far fetched as to be almost laughable, on this issue. To imply that he KNEW something for certain that no other intelligence oprganization in the world knew is simply not feasible. Even Clinton has backed Bush up on this.

    Unfortunately, pinning blame is about the easiest and least important task ahead of the USA. Pinning blame is fine and should be vigorously investigated...but if the entire intel apparatus got the information wrong, as it seems, it'g going to be tough to make someone culpable since by its very nature intel is a low-percentage game or a game that is filled with many variables or "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" - remember that speech the press killed Rumsfeld for makingm cause it sounded funny.


    It is a HUGE deal, however. Now, more than ever, we need put politics aside and think about the best way to improve our intel. Unfortunately, the admin will become overly defensive, the opponents will become overly hostile and it will all be lost in a sea of demagoguery and spin.

    It is my hope, though, that somewhere, people in power take a serious look at how it came to be like this. We to re-evaluate how we orgainze, share, verify and leverage information in the decision-making process. We need to change. I don't claim to be an expert, but you are 100% correct that it is a big problem, with ramifications I don't even want to think about.

    I mean, we got duped by N Korea, big time? Why didn't we know earlier that they were violating that agreement? (Not blaming Clinton or Bush or any party - the American Government is what dropped the ball...all of them, you know?)

    (Incidentally, I agree with Krauthammer's assessment of the necessity to remove Saddam by force, articulated in the article I posted)

  3. #3
    good post and good link 5ever

    a couple retorts:

    - the pro WMD intelligence was not operating in a vacuum. Bush in the SoU address said saddam "didn't let us in" but really there were UN inspections active throughout the latter half of the 90's. Eyewitnesses like Scott Ritter (who you and others absolutely raked over the coals) stated that the suspected stockpiles as the administration presented them simply did not exist. I will grant that the prevailing opinion was that WMD existed however its incorrect to imply that there was no one saying different. There was the disgraced Hans Blix (who you and many others absolutely raked over the coals) who was searching and doing what turned out in retrospect to be a very good job.

    - the PNAC doctrine and the Iraq war are very much related. Those that believed the country needed to proactively take control (by force) of instable regions found their toehold in the case of Iraq. Cheney and Wolfy are two of the more notable signees of the document and its my belief that these two took 9-11, the questionable Iraq intelligence coupled with a misinformed boss already Angry with Saddam and saw the opportunity to put the doctrine into action. Heck Cheney is still claiming that WMD are in Iraq as recently as last friday! Powell, Rice even Bush toned down their language but Cheney is still stuck in his groove. One of these things is not like the other.

    -finally there has to be an independant inquiry into this, for everyone's sake - Tony Blair called his own inquiry and was cleared by it... now all of a sudden he's rising in the polls again and the Tories have to regroup. The longer Bush supress the issue, the longer it will haunt the administration.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 02:01 PM
    [b] If you remember prio to the war, the disagreement was largely procedural and not substantive. Meaning, HOW should we disarm Hussein, force or continued inspections? Not one opponent suggested that Saddam didn't have WMD. And what's more, we still know he had stockpiles that were unaccounted for and that remain unaccounted for to this day.

    [/b][/quote]
    Excuse me 5-ever, but in the run-up to the war I repeatedly stated that Iraq didn't have WMD's.

    I based my conclusions on what former UNSCOM Chief inspector Scott Ritter had to say on the matter.

  5. #5
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 01:01 PM
    [b] It is my hope, though, that somewhere, people in power take a serious look at how it came to be like this. We to re-evaluate how we orgainze, share, verify and leverage information in the decision-making process. We need to change. I don't claim to be an expert, but you are 100% correct that it is a big problem, with ramifications I don't even want to think about.
    [/b][/quote]
    So, why aren't more conservatives criticizing the White House for stonewalling EVERY single investigation into the 9/11 report, the Valerie Plame case, and now the Kay report?

    These are all even being ostensibly conducted by independent commissions and not just liberal/democrat fanatics hellbent on bringing down Bush.

    It seems to me like the White House would rather avoid controversey in an election year than let the appointed commissinos DO THEIR JOB and produce reports that assess the failures and propose solutions, and this is a downright disgrace to me. But then, I'm obviously biased here.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta+Jan 30 2004, 01:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Jet Set Junta @ Jan 30 2004, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 01:01 PM
    [b] It is my hope, though, that somewhere, people in power take a serious look at how it came to be like this. We to re-evaluate how we orgainze, share, verify and leverage information in the decision-making process. We need to change. I don&#39;t claim to be an expert, but you are 100% correct that it is a big problem, with ramifications I don&#39;t even want to think about.
    [/b][/quote]
    So, why aren&#39;t more conservatives criticizing the White House for stonewalling EVERY single investigation into the 9/11 report, the Valerie Plame case, and now the Kay report?

    These are all even being ostensibly conducted by independent commissions and not just liberal/democrat fanatics hellbent on bringing down Bush.

    It seems to me like the White House would rather avoid controversey in an election year than let the appointed commissinos DO THEIR JOB and produce reports that assess the failures and propose solutions, and this is a downright disgrace to me. But then, I&#39;m obviously biased here. [/b][/quote]
    So Jet Set -

    I don&#39;t know if I agree about the extent they Bush administration is stone-walling and I KNOW you realize that these calls for investigations by democrats are highly politically motivated. The implication that the Dems only want to do their jobs and "get answers" is laughable, especially during an election year. Everything is politically motivated. As if THEY aren&#39;t playing politcs...c&#39;mon.

    (Spare me your links about the stone-walling, I&#39;ve read extensively about them from both &#39;sides.&#39;)

    Didn&#39;t the 9-11 comission issue a report to the Senate? Hmm....how&#39;d that happen with all of the stone-walling?


    The Plame thing and this recent "private files that were actually stored in a public folder" &#39;scandals&#39; are total jokes and it&#39;s the same crap the GOP tried to pull with Clinton. Guys called Clinton a murderer, drug dealer, rapist, etc.

    It&#39;s standard, by-the-book crap. The Clinton&#39;s were accused of "stone-walling" all sorts of sh*t and no one cared. I hated it when the GOP did it to Clinton and I hate it now.

  7. #7
    5ever the way i see it if they call an inquiry and it comes back clean (which of course we all know it will) they are better off than if they continue to ignore the issue... or worse act like Cheney and keep saying the WMD are gonna be found.

    like i said before the inquiry/aftermath really helped Blair&#39;s approval rating, even though a majority of britons consider the inquiry to be nothing more than a "whitewash"

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 02:32 PM
    [b] 5ever the way i see it if they call an inquiry and it comes back clean (which of course we all know it will) they are better off than if they continue to ignore the issue... or worse act like Cheney and keep saying the WMD are gonna be found.

    like i said before the inquiry/aftermath really helped Blair&#39;s approval rating, even though a majority of britons consider the inquiry to be nothing more than a "whitewash" [/b][/quote]
    But that&#39;s exactly the point - the only people who care about so-called stonewalling are the same people who would turn around aftwerwards and call it a whitewash. Honestly, you or Jet Set or Section or Taiolgators are really going to be fine with everyting if they investigate the beejeesus out of everything and the Bushies come out smelling like a rose?? I don&#39;t think so.....

  9. #9
    more importantly [b]5ever[/b] what do you think of Scott Ritter now?

    you had some very unflattering things to say about him.

  10. #10
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Jan 30 2004, 02:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Jan 30 2004, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 02:32 PM
    [b] 5ever the way i see it if they call an inquiry and it comes back clean (which of course we all know it will) they are better off than if they continue to ignore the issue... or worse act like Cheney and keep saying the WMD are gonna be found.

    like i said before the inquiry/aftermath really helped Blair&#39;s approval rating, even though a majority of britons consider the inquiry to be nothing more than a "whitewash" [/b][/quote]
    But that&#39;s exactly the point - the only people who care about so-called stonewalling are the same people who would turn around aftwerwards and call it a whitewash. Honestly, you or Jet Set or Section or Taiolgators are really going to be fine with everyting if they investigate the beejeesus out of everything and the Bushies come out smelling like a rose?? I don&#39;t think so..... [/b][/quote]
    In the case of 9/11, I would be fine. It&#39;s not that I think Bush and his boys let it happen and especially not that they wanted it to happen, but that they are too arrogant to even admit that they -- as well as the Clintons -- didn&#39;t have the security or intelligence being given priority and have a plan to fix it besides creating more alphabet soup beaurocracy, fearmongering with duct tape and color-coded threat levels, and Iraq type wars. IMO they are stonewalling it purely because even if it doesn&#39;t blame them directly and solely for anything that happened, it will still make criticisms that they don&#39;t want out there during an election battle.

    In the case of "Plame-gate", for there not to even be an ackowledgement of blame even if it&#39;s just a staffer I&#39;d find that more peculiar. But whatever; if they have so little to hide, they should be making zero attempt to stall it. Why did Ashcroft have to recuse himself?

    As for the current post-Kay judgements on CIA effectiveiness, I&#39;m cynical Bush will really do anything about it since it&#39;s a problem more complex and less sexy than invasions and promoting marriage. But he did announce and fund HSA to an extent, so who knows.

    Of course the Dems are going to be advocating these investigations, that&#39;s the job of checks and balances and opposition parties. But I think all 3 of those above things are much more serious than Oval Office blowjobs or corrupt real estate deals from 10 years ago. At this point, even if there was a deep cry for investigation into Bush&#39;s Enron ties I&#39;d say "move on" compared to the 3 above issues.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 03:12 PM
    [b] I don&#39;t know if I agree about the extent they Bush administration is stone-walling and I KNOW you realize that these calls for investigations by democrats are highly politically motivated. The implication that the Dems only want to do their jobs and "get answers" is laughable, especially during an election year. [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...It&#39;s not just the Democrats that are calling for an independent investigation. John McCain who has just spent the week campaigning for the president has also called for an investigation.

    [b]Bush Sidesteps Call for Outside Probe on Iraq WMD[/b]
    By REUTERS

    Published: January 30, 2004


    Filed at 1:16 p.m. ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Friday sidestepped demands for outside review of pre-war intelligence on Iraq, but said it was important to know all the facts surrounding White House assertions Iraq&#39;s illicit weapons justified the U.S. decision to invade.

    ``I want to American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts,&#39;&#39; Bush told reporters at the White House.

    Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain has broken party ranks to join Democratic demands for an independent probe into how U.S. intelligence got it wrong given the failure by searchers to find weapons of mass destruction Bush insisted were in Iraq.

    The president, seeking re-election this year, gave no sign he planned to yield to the demands. He stuck to a position that the U.S. government will compare in an internal CIA probe the pre-war intelligence with what the weapons hunters have found.

    ``I want to be able to compare what the Iraq Survey Group has found with what we thought prior to going into Iraq,&#39;&#39; he said when asked whether he would support an independent probe.

    Former chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay said on Capitol Hill on Wednesday ``we were almost all wrong&#39;&#39; about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that his search there found no evidence of biological or chemical arms.

    Kay and a number of leading Democrats on Capitol Hill have also called for an investigation, but Republicans say they fear an election-year political witchhunt.

    Bush said Kay had made clear in his congressional testimony that Saddam Hussein was a ``growing danger&#39;&#39; who had to be dealt with given the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.

    ``He was defiant, he ignored the request of the international community and this country led a coalition to remove him. We dealt with the danger,&#39;&#39; Bush said. But critics emphasize that was not the main justification given for the war, in which more than 500 U.S. troops have so far died.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 04:25 PM
    [b] 5-ever...It&#39;s not just the Democrats that are calling for an independent investigation. John McCain who has just spent the week campaigning for the president has also called for an investigation.

    [/b][/quote]
    So then you agree with McCain&#39;s conclusions that the war was justified?

    No WMDs so found so far, you don&#39;t believe they existed, so it should be easy for you to answer this.

    If WMDs are found, will you agree the war was justified or at least that you were wrong and President Bush was right. C&#39;mon, commit yourself. Stand behind your words for a change.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 05:03 PM
    [b] If WMDs are found, will you agree the war was justified? [/b][/quote]
    If?

    Weeb...You Said If?

    Do Remember what happened to Linus whe he said "if"&#33;

    The Great Pumpkin never came. ;)

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Jan 31 2004, 05:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Jan 31 2004, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 30 2004, 05:03 PM
    [b] If WMDs are found, will you agree the war was justified? [/b][/quote]
    If?

    Weeb...You Said If?

    Do Remember what happened to Linus whe he said "if"&#33;

    The Great Pumpkin never came. ;) [/b][/quote]
    Answer the question instead of diverting the issue with a cutesy answer.

    If WMDs are found, will you admit you&#39;re wrong about the war and Bush? Since WMDs are the basis as to why you believe the war is unjustified and Bush is a lier, just make the statement. If you&#39;re right, you&#39;ve got nothing to worry about. Nobody&#39;s found anything yet, so it should take no guts on your part at all.

    In other words, I&#39;m calling you out. The reason you won&#39;t is because you are a spinning, gutless, coward. A coward that just can&#39;t support his country. A coward that would rather believe a mass murdering, dictactor over a President belonging to a different politican party. If Bush is a lier, Saddam is truthful. Can&#39;t have it both ways. And you better hope nothing is found, because if it is, you will be witnessing the end to the Baath Party of America -- democrats.

    And you&#39;re right about the Great Pumpkin. Linus Kerry will never see his.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]Answer the question instead of diverting the issue with a cutesy answer.

    If WMDs are found, will you admit you&#39;re wrong about the war and Bush? Since WMDs are the basis as to why you believe the war is unjustified and Bush is a lier, just make the statement. If you&#39;re right, you&#39;ve got nothing to worry about. Nobody&#39;s found anything yet, so it should take no guts on your part at all.

    In other words, I&#39;m calling you out. The reason you won&#39;t is because you are a spinning, gutless, coward. A coward that just can&#39;t support his country. A coward that would rather believe a mass murdering, dictactor over a President belonging to a different politican party. If Bush is a lier, Saddam is truthful. Can&#39;t have it both ways. And you better hope nothing is found, because if it is, you will be witnessing the end to the Baath Party of America -- democrats.

    And you&#39;re right about the Great Pumpkin. Linus Kerry will never see his.
    [/b][/quote]

    Why does he need to make a distinction. I am against this war even if WMD were/are found. But for the Bush administration to use WMD that so far do not exist as a basis for war just compunds the issue. All justifications have been exhausted except for the oil.

    The people that need to apologize are the people like Bill O&#39;Reilly (read my signature below) and every other Republican who has been adamant that WMD exsist and are the main reason for War.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 2 2004, 02:53 PM
    [b] Why does he need to make a distinction. I am against this war even if WMD were/are found. But for the Bush administration to use WMD that so far do not exist as a basis for war just compunds the issue. All justifications have been exhausted except for the oil.

    The people that need to apologize are the people like Bill O&#39;Reilly (read my signature below) and every other Republican who has been adamant that WMD exsist and are the main reason for War. [/b][/quote]
    You should clean your ears out...regime change in Iraq was always a main purpose of the war and firmly stated from the get-go.

    The oil arguement was a ridiculous theory for the left that never had any justification other than rancor.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Regime change was and is clearly the main justification for the war. WMD were one of the reasons, a big one, yes, but merely one.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 2 2004, 04:51 PM
    [b] [quote][b]The oil arguement was a ridiculous theory for the left that never had any justification other than rancor. [/b][/quote]

    Rediculous theory? Then why did the Bush administration divide up the Iraqi oil fields when he initially took office?

    [/b][/quote]
    More mindless, pissing in the wind conspiracy I see.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]The oil arguement was a ridiculous theory for the left that never had any justification other than rancor. [/b][/quote]

    Rediculous theory? Then why did the Bush administration divide up the Iraqi oil fields when he initially took office?

    [img]http://65.216.239.9/pics/politics/oil.gif[/img]

  20. #20
    Come Back to NY it must be nice to be you

    [img]http://www.hire-safe.com/images/ostritch.gif[/img]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us