Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Republicans Limit scope of intel probe
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
p2insdca
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030611_429.html


So we turn Ken Starr loose on whitewater and blow gate, but not when the lives of our young men and women are at stake? Shame!
And yes Phillyfan, I know Clinton signed DOMA
PhillyFan
It takes the dixi chics a year to tour america, how would you expect to have the entire country of Iraq inspected in a ilttle over... 2 months?

This is how, you are playing political games... thats how.
fantomas
Of course they want to limit the report because it will show how incompetent W., Condi, Rummy, the CIA, and FBI all were pre 9/11m and yet again how they cooked the books or made up stories to get this new war through.

Let the truth out, W., don't get your party to shield you. They went after empathizing Bubba with a hatchet and laser, so at least be a man and stand up to scrutiny. I don't think W. can take the heat, though.

Too bad the Democrats are such wussies they can't force him to be a man or truthful.

[ June 11, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
fantomas
Come on, Jay, get tough. Stop dithering, call a liar a liar!

QUOTE
Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, top Intelligence Committee Democrat, called the Republicans' plan for regular oversight hearings \"entirely inadequate and slow-paced. I'm not sure whether they really want to get to the crux of what really happened.\" He said he would keep pressing for a broad inquiry.

Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, another Intelligence Committee Democrat, said Republicans were set to review documents \"that have been volunteered by the intelligence agencies. That is not the way to conduct an investigation.\"

But Roberts said he was seeking all relevant documents, not just what the intelligence agencies volunteered, and would proceed \"in a very deliberate and bipartisan manner\" starting with a closed hearing next week.

With media reports of unnamed officials saying they felt pressured to slant intelligence, Roberts said he has \"yet to hear from any intelligence official expressing such concerns\" and urged anyone in that position to tell the committee.

John Warner of Virginia, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the evidence he has seen so far \"does not rise to give the presumption that any one in this administration has hyped or cooked or embellished such evidence to a particular purpose.\"
ung
The republicans play hard ball. The democrats are unable to or afraid to play hardball.

That's why I admire Howard Dean. He's got balls. Cojones. Not like Jay Rockefeller and all those Congressional wussies.

................................

And Phillyfan, the Dixie Chicks took a year to tour the US cuz they were a small group of people stopping every few days at a new venue to do concerts. AND!!! as you'd be glad to point out, Natalie Maines had to stop every 3 hours at a buffet. (and no... I don't hate the Chicks. Just something Philly keeps jabbering about non-stop)

Meanwhile, the American Military presence is more than a couple of tour buses... More like several hundred thousand buses. They don't stop to do shows in Basra and Halabja. and instead of the whole country, they're searching a state the size of California.

PLUS! Before the war, we had satellite pics that could tell us how many jeeps they had in their backyards. I don't think the Chicks canvassed continental U.S. via satellite spy imagery. You think?

Meaning...... something should have turned up before now definitely. After all, that is simply what every war monger ASSURED the country and they bet their reputations on it. In fact, the ass**** colonel on FoxNews bet his integrity on finding WMDs "very soon". Where is all that chest thumping now?

Before we break down into another Republican vs Democrat debate. This should not be about party politics.

The evidence was presented not just to convince democrats to approve war but to ALL AMERICANS. I (as a Republican) am deeply disturbed at the lack of evidence POST-WAR and the very obvious back-pedaling going on. I wanna know if I was lied to!!!

[ June 11, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
p2insdca
Great points!
Phillyfan, if we could intercept radio/phone calls and quote them to the UN we should have know where to start looking.
Again, if this Admin really thought they were there don't you think they would have committed enough troops etc to find the weapons before they fell in to the wrong hands? Would you pull troops out before sealing the boarders to make sure that the terrorist that Rummy says are in Iran did not get VX to release in NYC or washington? :mad:
ung
and to those who ask rhetorically, "You don't believe that Hussein EVER possessed WMDs?"

Well... of course he did!!! That's a stupid question!! He did because WE, THE USofA, gave those very weapons to Iraq to fight Iran. All those chemical, biological weapons and warheads we gave them. So.... no. Bush sr, Clinton et al were not lying when they said Hussein DID possess them (notice the use of the PAST TENSE )

But we didn't declare PRE-EMPTIVE WAR because he had these weapons (which we gave him) 20 years ago. we didn't go to war because he had them 5 years ago. we went to war because Bush Jr said categorically, emphatically, undeniably that he possessed them NOW and that he was an "IMMINENT THREAT" to the US

THAT is what we're dickering about. Not whether he still had 2 years ago what we gave him 15 years ago.

[ June 11, 2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
fantomas
Thank you, ung! And I do notice that CITT, like Victoria Clarke about Krugman, had the gall to call me and others "Saddam apologists." This is not only insulting it's inane and cowardly. In post after post BEFORE all this crap about the missing WMDs came out, I asked repeatedly for W. to come clean about his aims AND condemned Saddam. Yes, Saddam needed to go--not just into hiding, but TO BE KILLED. I'm saying it--KILLED--and not for the first time. He should have been killed in 1991 when we had him on the ropes, before he had another TWELVE YEARS to slaughter. We knew what he was doing then. As you say we even bankrolled his weapons purchases and slaughter. The US, Russia, Germany, France, etc. We had Saddam's back. That didn't make him okay then or, wherever he is, now.

BTW, Chalabi announced yesterday that Saddam is alive, that he was plotting against the US, AND that he and aides had purchased suicide vests! Now, I don't believe a thing Chalabi has to say since he's an indicted crook and provide Perle and the other neocons with a lot of this false WMD info, but at the same time, I hope against hope that he's NOT telling the truth and that Saddam is NOT out there actively plotting against our troops. Lord knows, if W. is going to accomplish anything fully--not just in bits and pieces with lots of mirrors and clever Faux narratives to make it look good, let's get Saddam! I mean, how tough can it be? Didn't we win the damned war? Aren't we in control in that country?

[ June 11, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
p2insdca
Saddam, Osama.....we can not find either?
Saddam was vile and evil, but I still do not think we had the right to lauch a pre emptive war based on the treat to the US, unless there were WMD.
Again, I want to say that we look like either fools or liars to the rest of the world. The boy who cried wolf is a story mr Bush needs to have read to him
PhillyFan
QUOTE
p2insdca:
we look like either fools or liars to the rest of the world.
HEY, LETS ASK FRENCHIE WHAT HE THINKS?
sportinlife
The Philadelphia inquirer's Trudy Rubin writes an inciteful article asking why a nuclear facility in Iraq was not better guarded during the war.

The primary question focused on is
QUOTE
How is it possible that, according to Iraqi nuclear scientists, looters are still stealing radioactive isotopes?
Good question.

[ June 15, 2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
PhillyFan
ummmm, so why is it that if sadaaaaaaam had no wmd's as you suggest... did he not open his country up to inspection without hampering blixi boy? If he truely had NOTHING to hide, he would not have stood in the way. He would not have kicked the inspectors out in 98. He would have allowed the spy plane flyovers.

All the way back to 80's everyone knew sadaam had these weapons. Everyone knew he had them up until 98, and everyone assumed he would mass produce them once again when inspectors left. No one argues this point.

Now, it's quite easy to blame W for the war (and play your political game because you hate him) and say bad bad boy... but really, if Sadaam had nothing to hide, he would have complied. he did not and he paid the price by being invaded.
Denver Fan
The reason you're so sure they were there Philly is because your boy Ronnie let him make them as long as he was using them against Iran. But who's to say he didn't give them up before.

And if you want to argue that he didn't let inspectors have unfettered access, there's this thing called Pride, and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if some other country wanted to search in America for our WMD, because we certainly do have them (oh, wait ours are ok)
PhillyFan
QUOTE
Denver Fan:
But who's to say he didn't give them up before.
Lets ask the Kurds.... i think they know first hand at that.
Denver Fan
boy you love to pick a sentance and not address the whole context, typical Re-PUKE-lican

He hadn't used them since then, so maybe he got rid of them after that, or maybe he was just using them up on the Kurds.
PhillyFan
QUOTE
Denver Fan:

He hadn't used them since then
Of course not, he's only used them against his own people and neighbors... invaded another neighboring country and shot missles at Israel... i'm sure he would never have thought of using them.

I'm sure he freely got rid of them... he's got that track record, now doesnt he?
NoLongerHere
Link-O-Rama re: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Short excerpts are below, with links to the full articles

http://truthout.org/docs_03/061103B.shtml
Under-Fire President Waters Down Claims on Iraqi Weapons
By Roland Watson and Elaine Monaghan in Washington
The Times UK

Tuesday 10 June 2003

PRESIDENT BUSH insisted yesterday that US forces would reveal that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction as he tried to douse growing doubts about the credibility of American intelligence.

“Iraq had a weapons programme. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons programme,” Mr Bush said. “I am absolutely convinced, with time, we’ll find out that they did have a weapons programme.”

However, he stopped short of his previous assertions that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction had posed an imminent threat. Nor did he say that the United States would uncover biological and chemical agents.

Instead, he sought to justify the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds, saying: “History in time will prove that the United States made the absolute right decision in freeing the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein.”

http://truthout.org/docs_03/061003B.shtml
Norwegian Weapons Inspector: US Lied About Iraq's Weapons
Aftenposten

Wednesday 19 May 2003

A US-based Norwegian weapons inspector accuses the USA and Secretary of State Colin Powell with providing the United Nations Security Council with incorrect and misleading information about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), newspaper Dagbladet reports.

Joern Siljeholm, Ph.D. in environmental chemistry, risk analysis and toxicology, said that the USA's basis for going to war is thin indeed, and called it a slap in the face to the United Nations weapons inspectors.

Siljeholm told Dagbladet that Colin Powell's report to the Security Council on how Iraq camouflaged their WMD program was full of holes.

"Much of what he said was wrong. It did not match up at all with our information. The entire speech was misleading," Siljeholm said.

Asked if the Americans lied, Siljeholm said: "Lie is a strong word - but yes, the information Powell presented about Iraq's nuclear program was simply incorrect," Siljeholm said.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/060903B.shtml
Failure to find arms undercuts Bush doctrine
By Mark Matthews and Tom Bowman
Sun National Staff

Sunday 08 June 2003

First-strike policy tested in Iraq will be harder to sell now, experts say; 'We played that card'; Furor shines spotlight on interpretation of weapons intelligence

WASHINGTON - America's failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has undercut the Bush administration's justification for war and dealt a blow to its policy of pre-emptive military action against global threats, according to former officials and analysts.

George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, and committees of Congress and the British Parliament are preparing inquiries into whether prewar intelligence was distorted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's government.

In the United States and Britain, some lawmakers who backed the war are dismayed and angry over assertions by the Bush administration and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear weapons.

The failure to find such weapons would probably make it even harder next time for the United States to mobilize international support for pre-emptive action against a perceived threat.

The pre-emption doctrine, outlined in a speech President Bush gave at the U.S. Military Academy a year ago, declares that the United States will take action against nations and terrorist groups that threaten America and won't wait for them to strike first. Iraq was the test case.

"If we don't find weapons - and it's still an open question - we reduce the credibility of the United States when we go to other countries and say, 'We have intelligence saying X, Y and Z.' We played that card," said Joseph S. Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a senior Pentagon and intelligence official in the Clinton administration.

Once U.S. credibility diminishes, Nye said, "we reduce our ability to attract others" to join in military action.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/060803A.shtml
Kucinich: Show Us The Evidence, Mr. President
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Saturday 07 June 2003

Kucinich Leads 30 Members of Congress In Introducing A Resolution of Inquiry To Force Administration To Turn Over Intelligence On Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction


Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), today, led 30 Members of Congress in introducing a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives to force the Administration to turn over the intelligence to back its yet unproven claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.


“It is long past time that the President and this Administration show its evidence,” stated Kucinich, the leader of the opposition to the war in Iraq in the House. “Today, we are introducing a Resolution of Inquiry to compel the White House to substantiate its claims. The President led the nation to war, and spent at least $63 billion on that war, on the basis of these unfounded assertions.”

The resolution, introduced today by 30 Members of Congress, led by Kucinich, seeks to force the Administration to turn over the intelligence to substantiate claims by the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and the White House Press Secretary that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and therefore posed a threat to the United States.

The resolution is a privileged resolution and must be voted on in Committee within 14 legislative days. Kucinich used the same procedure in March to force the Administration to release the 12,000 page weapon report that Iraq has submitted to the United Nations.

“This Administration owes an explanation to this Congress and to the American people,” continued Kucinich. “Now is the time for truth telling.”

http://truthout.org/docs_03/060703I.shtml
The Preception of Deception: Where Are the Iraqi Weapons?
By U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd

Thursday 05 June 2003

With each passing day, the questions surrounding Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction take on added urgency. Where are the massive stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other nerve agents that we were told Iraq was hoarding? Where are the thousands of liters of botulinim toxin? Wasn't it the looming threat to America posed by these weapons that propelled the United States into war with Iraq? Isn't this the reason American military personnel were called upon to risk their lives in combat?

On March 17, in his final speech to the American people before ordering the invasion of Iraq, President Bush took one last opportunity to bolster his case for war. The centerpiece of his argument was the same message he brought to the United Nations months before, and the same message he hammered home at every opportunity in the intervening months, namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and thus presented an imminent danger to the American people. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," the President said.

Now, nearly two months after the fall of Baghdad, the United States has yet to find any physical evidence of those lethal weapons. Could they be buried underground or are they somehow camouflaged in plain sight? Were they destroyed before the war? Have they been shipped out of the country? Do they actually exist? The questions are mounting. What started weeks ago as a restless murmur throughout Iraq has intensified into a worldwide cacophony of confusion.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reminder on discussion board etiquette: Keep quotations brief. When quoting a lengthy article from an external source, quote only a brief passage relevant to your point, with a link to the original document. - Outsports moderator

[ June 12, 2003, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]
PhillyFan
At least the site you linked is biased, i can find 10 sites balanced the other way....

I bet Castro loves that site... and the french.
p2insdca
Ok Phillyfan, maybe Sadam just wanted people to think he had them so they would not attack him?
Kinda like MAD, only with smoke and mirrors. Maybe he feared an attack by Iran, or Isreal if it was know how weak his armed forces were.
Also If the NUclear ( bushism) plant is un protected that makes the prospect of a dirty bomb much more likely.
ung
Phillyfan,

Honestly. If you're gonna respond to some of these assertions, then address them. If you're not gonna respond, then please stop with the "I bet the french love that" and other such childish non-sense. The french and what they love or don't love is NOT germaine to the debate at hand.

as one republican to another, please....you're only embarassing yourself with these 7th grade retorts. It's ok. to let some things go unanswered.

I think more than those who were against the war.. those of us who were FOR the war (like me) should be way more outraged.

Those in opposition were never swayed. But those of us who said "yes" did so in part because of what we were told as evidence. we were the ones influenced by the lies. not the opposition. That's why I'm pissed.

Senator McCain said it very well. It is still a bit early to rush to conclusions. But an inquiry is very much justified and needed. so says our war hero, straight shooting republican senator.

[ June 11, 2003, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
p2insdca
UNG- Great post. I still do not regret the donation I made to McCain. Who better than someone who put his life on the line to be the voice of reason
twin58
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
He [Saddam] would not have kicked the inspectors out in 98.
As a matter of fact, he didn't. You can look it up.

[ June 11, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
Denver Fan
If he had them PhillyFan then why not unleash them on the US invaders? If i was going down, I'd fight with every last thing I had just to take a few more of the invaders with me.

History will prove the US was wrong.
fantomas
QUOTE
ung
Senator McCain said it very well. It is still a bit early to rush to conclusions. But an inquiry is very much justified and needed. so says our war hero, straight shooting republican senator.
Ung, I'm with you, but let me say this. John McCain is also being loyal to his party. He sat through as the last president was impeached on specious grounds, and while McCain is a maverick, I doubt that he wants to go through that again. Such a response is unlikely given the likes of Tom DeLay controlling the House (with Hastert as his puppet), but I think it's not too early to conclude that something is truly rotten in the state of Denmark, or shall we say, in the administration.

Whatever defenses people come up with for what happened, they're all very troubling. If our intelligence is this poor, how can we be assured of safety or acting responsibly as a nation and a military in the future? If the president did lie to us, what is to stop him--or members of his administration--from even more dangerous lies in the future? If it's a combination of the two, aren't we then in very serious trouble? How can we even claim to function as a democracy? Are we any better than pseudo-democracies like Pakistan and Haiti? And if we're at the level, don't we need a massive change at the top, as well as a revolution in civil consciousness?

Yes, I'm glad Saddam is no longer in control of all of Iraq. I wish he, his sons, and his cronies were dead and he had the proof of that. But the pending issue for us in the United States is for someone to be accountable to the what led us into this war in the first place. We've had obfuscations, mistruths, dissimulations, and outright lies. When and where are they going to end? Democrats were rightly disgusted with Clinton's gross lying about his sex affair, and Republicans, like ALL Americans, should be very upset if it turns out that Bush blatantly lied in this particular context, given the stakes of what our troops and the world are facing because of Iraq.
ung
today's wash post article about forged documents

when does simple negligence turn into willful ignorance? Have we crossed it yet?
fantomas
Hey ung, thanks for the Washington Post link. From the Guardian UK's online chat--this punctures the Bush admin's tale about the CIA:

QUOTE
  bluebonnet1 - 04:14pm Jun 12, 2003 BST (58.) New:

Lies, lies, lies and more lies. Now they're trying to blame the CIA by saying they were never given the report; however, look at the article dated Oct. 9 by Salon, saying that the CIA knew that the uranium documents were soundless. Jesus!!! These bastards have no ethics at all!!!

Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid

By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 12, 2003; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...ml?nav=hptop_tb

A key component of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said.

The CIA's failure to share what it knew, which has not been disclosed previously, was one of a number of steps in the Bush administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve of the war in Iraq, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the claim was based on fabricated evidence.

A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of \"extremely sloppy\" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But, the official added, \"It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more.\"

...more...

-------------------------------------------------

CIA Contradicts Bush's Message on Iraq. While I was doing some research on a LBN post I came across this great article.

http://www.salon.com/news/col/scheer/2002/.../cia/index.html

-SNIP- The CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons, although it lamely attempts to put the worst spin on that embarrassing fact: \"Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.\" -SNIP

The best part about this is that it was posted on Oct. 9th of last year. This kind of stuff needs to be shouted to the rooftops. Our noble King George II must not be allowed to blame the intelligence community for his sham.


[ June 12, 2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
p2insdca
Believe it or not, I am less concerned about using this to hang bush( OK OK it is a close second) I am much more concerned about how far we have or not come in improving our intel ops.
I would want open hearings if Gore was in the White house and the situation were the same.
We were told 9/11 was a total intel FU. Well, if the situation has not changed, it could/will happen again. Second IF we are to convince the rest of the world to help us root out terrorism they are going to have to believe our intel/believe in us.
To many have died to let this be behind closed doors
PhillyFan
QUOTE
ung:
Senator McCain said it very well. It is still a bit early to rush to conclusions. But an inquiry is very much justified and needed. so says our war hero, straight shooting republican senator.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89232,00.html

McCain on Cavuto today... Doesnt sound like he's asking for an investigation into the WMD's at all.... which he literally said again on the radio here in AZ, his home state.
ung
Phillyfan,

did you READ the article to which you provided the link? Were you meaning to refer to a different article? Cuz unless that's the case, I don't know what you're talking about.

first of all, I heard from Sen. McCain's own mouth what I stated earlier. and second, I'll reprint from the Neil Cavuto interview on FoxNews.
[
QUOTE

CAVUTO: All right. Now, as you know, sir, Senator Pat Roberts, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Senator John Warner, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, Porter Goss, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee -- none of these guys are keen on starting hearings as quickly as you seem to be. Is there a division?

MCCAIN: I have no idea what you mean. I’ve had many conversations with Pat Roberts and with Senator Warner in as short a time as an hour ago, and that’s how I know we’re going to have a hearing in two weeks, with General Franks being the witness. So I don’t have a clue as to what you would be thinking.


McCain: Neil, you’ve got to understand something here. We have a responsibility to our taxpayers, to the men and women in the military. The Congress has a responsibility.

An orderly hearing about how the war was conducted -- and it is -- the regime change has been accomplished -- is entirely appropriate in an orderly process, and that is what we normally do post-conflict scenarios.
I stand by what I reported earlier

[ June 12, 2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
PhillyFan
From McCain....

McCain Well, first of all, I think you might have misunderstood my position a little bit. I have always been in favor of hearings post- conflict as we did after the Gulf War, after Bosnia, after Kosovo where we have congressional oversight hearings, particularly in the Senate Armed Services Committee of which I am a member.

And I believe we’re going to have General Franks as the first witness, and I’d like to hear about the tragedy of the friendly fire accidents, how our military functioned so effectively, the strategy and tactics employed, and what their future needs are. That’s the appropriate role of Congress. Weapons of mass destruction will be part of that.

CAVUTO: Well, could I ask you this, Senator? If we don’t find evidence of these weapons of mass destruction and it turns out to be an intelligence failure, what should the president do about that?

MCCAIN: I am confident we will find those weapons because, look, he had them in the ‘80s, when he used it against his own people and others, he had them in ‘91 after the Gulf War, he had them in ‘98 -- that was President Clinton’s opinion as well as the inspectors’ opinion. I am confident that we will find those weapons.


To me it sounds like Mr. McCain wants to interview Franks to know how the war went, and also to discuss the WMD's, but is more concerned with what went right and what went wrong with the fighting. Also, what they need to do their jobs.

He's not turning this into where are the WMD, and seems confident they will find them. In fact, he cautioned that this should not turn into a political game.
ung
you're correct. The missing WMDs won't be the sole focus of the hearings. But he has acknowledged that the missing weapons are a concern and should be and will be addressed in the hearings.
p2insdca
One of my greast fears is IF he had them, what are the chances they will fall into the wrong hands?
Also, it is one of those you live by the sword, you die by the sword. In alot of peoples minds, and yes I am one of them, IF this happened on president Gores watch it would be political. We would be hearing from many of the same people that this was another example of Gore lying. We would be hearing Where is Sadam? Where is Osama..then we would have another Ken Starr.
I do not think 9/11 would have changed that.
NoLongerHere
The partisan politics in all of this concerns the G.W. Regime's propensity toward secrecy and control. I mean, yeah, I suppose this very easily could have happened under Gore, or any othe president, Democrat or Republican.

So like p2insdca, my growing concern here is SYSTEMS based. Is there something wrong with the CIA/FBI/et al...? Could 9/11 have been prevented? Are the same systems and institutions that failed us then failing us now?

Does the Bush Regime enable, exacerbate, or necessitate poor or misinformed reporting? Yeah, WMD are part of the issue. PART of the issue. Seems like we have much bigger problems with communication within the government!

And that's really f-ing scary.

Another article, just info. and context:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084086

Seems like a lot more can be done, yes? And, no, that's not a partisan comment. That's a "I'm getting pretty f-ing worried again" comment.
charliecstl
Does anybody else see the irony in all of this? The administration told the UN they were out of time, because intelligence demonstrated a clear and imminent threat. The message was basically -- "if you are not capable enough to find these things that are all over the place, we will take care of the problem for you".

Now that nothing is there to find, we are being told by the administration that this takes time and everyone needs to be patient. Hypocritical -- absolutely. Ludicrous -- you bet. Ironic -- incredibly.

The reason the scope of the probe is being limited is because the Congressional Republicans see danger in the water and want to get out the shark repellent while they still have control.
p2insdca
Yes I see the irony, but I think the world, esp in its anti American feelings of late will see it as being more sinister than than.
Regarding the intel failure, this has to be addressed, now!
Insofar as Republicans being worried, all Americans should be worried.
ung
sullied reputations of the americans in the international stage aside.... what we have to be aware of is this.
If we don't do repair on our tarnished reputation, it'll do lasting damage to our credibility. that means that getting international support will be that much more difficult since the world will not believe us.

Think of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"
HornFan
George "Wolf!" Bush.

[ June 14, 2003, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: HornFan ]
sportinlife
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
ummmm, so why is it that if sadaaaaaaam had no wmd's as you suggest... did he not open his country up to inspection without hampering blixi boy?
We don't open our homes to inspection without cause whether guilty or innocent. The UN inspectors were the equivalent of policemen with a warrant, who as far as we know up to now, may have done a good job of searching before they were pre-empted by our invasion (which was effectively judgment and sentencing before a trial, which we might not have recognized anyhow in Iraq's case since we have decided that intenational law only applies to us when it's in our interest.)

I can't, and wont try, to argue whether and when Iraq possessed WMD's. Rubin's comments were wisely limited to nuclear weapons and did not much address biological or chemical weapons which are easier to hide.

However regardless of whether they exist, I believe it very doubtful that they represented a serious threat to us or anyone else as long as international pressure was applied to Iraq by inspections and maintenance of no-fly zones.

Hundreds, if not thousands (noone seems seriously intersted in getting exact numbers) of Iraqi's have been killed by us, many simply for being in the wrong country at the wrong time. Before we leave the death toll may easily mount up to the number slaughtered by the previous regime (again figures are debatable).

So far the Iraqi people have exchanged one "rule by force" for another.

There was, and is, a better approach to the way we did things. Justice is a messy and time-consuming business but our own Revolution should have taught us that it's better than the alternative in the long run.
ung
former white house counter terrorism advisor criticizes Bush

The special assistant to the Bush White House is now attacking the administration's policy on the war on terror.

[ June 16, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: ung ]
fantomas
QUOTE
ung:
former white house counter terrorism advisor criticizes Bush

The special assistant to the Bush White House is now attacking the administration's policy on the war on terror.
Look, ung, I don't work in counterterrorism or even in or for the government and I have been saying a lot of the same things this Beers guy is saying--when ARE AMERICANS GOING TO WAKE UP OUT OF THEIR SLEEPWALKING? Bush is a disaster. IT's not about being loyal to the GOP; there are more capable pachyderms out there--this guy was handpicked to push an extreme agenda, and it's showing. Rand Beers worked for Reagan, Bush I and Clinton so his comments are less likely partisan and more born out of out a sincere desire to help this country. When are people going to wake up???

[ June 17, 2003, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
ung
But Fans.... You and I both know that people are lazy and will only act when they absolutely must.

Cynical? yes. Truth? yes.

You and I agree on many points about this whole WMD issue. But the people do not have the desire to overcome inertia and actually think hard to ask, "Was that the truth?"
p2insdca
I think part of it is nobody like to think they were wrong. An example of this could be how people are moving from " the WMD pose a direct threat to America" to " Mass graves with women and children"
I suppose part of it is lingering 9/11 feelings, but I can not recall a time when people were less demanding of truth from the gov't
PhillyFan
QUOTE
ung:
you're correct. The missing WMDs won't be the sole focus of the hearings. But he has acknowledged that the missing weapons are a concern and should be and will be addressed in the hearings.
Here is a piece from McCain in the newspaper today.

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseact...Content_id=1117

But do critics really believe that Saddam Hussein disposed of his weapons and dismantled weapons programs while fooling every major intelligence service on earth, generations of U.N. inspectors, three U.S. presidents and five secretaries of defense into believing he possessed them, in one of the most costly and irrational gambles in history?

While war was never inevitable, it was, in retrospect, the most telegraphed military confrontation in history. Hussein had plenty of time to destroy or disperse weapons stocks and to further conceal weapons programs, which often rely more on human knowledge than physical infrastructure.
p2insdca
I will say this again, for the nations sake, I hope we do find some, but on the other hand if we do not find any the the intel under Bush has not improved and that alone IMO diqualifies any talk of winning the war on terror
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.