White House retreating from WMD Claims...

[headscratcher4]

Yet again...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20040126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons

Hmmm...and last week the V.P. was saying the evidence was "overwhelming..." Overwhelmingly bad, apparently....

But don't worry, they'll resurect the claims next week and people will have forgotten again...

 

[a_unique_person]

So, what was the war all about then?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by A Unique Person

So, what was the war all about then?

a). Getting rid of a dangerous man who might attack other countries in the Middle East again someday, with or without the WMD.....

b) To distract Americans (in an election year) from the failed U.S. policies in Afghanistan ("Where?") and the search for Osama bin Ladin ("Who?")

c) To debut the new "Bush Doctrine"...namely, that there's only one superpower in the world now, the "Balance of Power" is a thing of the past, and the US will do whatever the h*ll it wants to, wherever it wants to, and the rest of the world's opinions and ideas don't matter at all.....

d) Getting rid of some of our huge, unused military stockpile so that we can stimulate new military spending, contracts and weapons R&D....

e) All of the above.

 

[Zep]

Clancie, I agree with all your points on this.

And in which case, I'm pretty sure that, with even a modicum of careful thought, point (a) could have been achieved with a completely different strategy that would have been way lower cost in all respects, and would have had every neighbour and ally and the UN cheering the USA along.

What a pity...

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Human Rights Watch: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

So, the United States had to drop everything and go to war with Iraq, without UN support, because of some things the Iraqi government did in the past?

 

[specious_reasons]

So, what was the war all about then?

For fear of agreeing with Rikzilla , there are plenty of potentially good reasons to go to war with Iraq.

However, the war was justified and sold to the public based on seemingly spurious claims of WMD. That's the shame of this administration - Rik's done a better job of selling the war than they have.

 

[SRW]

What will come out of this is the fact that U.S. intelligence has got become dependant on satellite and other electronic techniques. And do not have the human intelligence on the ground to correctly evaluate the situation.

The message coming from Kay is that Saddam was being deceived by his own people and was led to believe that the WMD did exist, but that they were doing a great Job of hiding it. In the Last few Years Saddam was much like Hitler at the end of WW2, ordering attacks by non-existent army and the use of super weapons that did not exist.

 

[a_unique_person]

IIRC, it was the intelligence community that was saying they had no proof, and they are over-ridden by the White House that manipulated the information to be regarded as proof.

No wonder Colin Powell has already decided not to continue in his role.

 

[Zep]

To be honest, GWB himself seems to be but a mindless puppet of more sinister forces behind him. I know, I know, it sounds like some 3rd-rate conspiracy theory, but the opinion of the majority of us here in the rest of the world is that GWB hasn't a brain to bless himself with. Truly, he's a dummy in all senses of the word.

Which begs the question: If GWB didn't understand, decide and plan to take the USA into the Middle East, who did?

 

[sorgoth]

Zep, I agree.

It just seems like there were some really inteligent things done during the Bush administration, and it doesn't seem like they were done by Bush.

Edited to clarify: I don't think what they did was intelligent, I think what they did was done intelligently. There, that states my opinion a bit better. Swaying the majority of the american public to their side was one amazing feat.

 

[Suddenly]

That's the shame of this administration - Rik's done a better job of selling the war than they have.

Yep. That's about my 2-bit opinion on the matter. It isn't so much the larger issue of whether Iraq should be invaded, it's just that the administration has been so inept at doing it, from justification to it seems sofar, execution.

They seem like a bunch of amateurs that have gotten into something they don't understand, counting on some unseen force or support to make everything alright.

I have a feeling if in 1000 years the human race survives this current madness and outgrows the need for gods and so forth, the Bush administration will be another example of the harmful effects of blind faith.

They invaded a country with not enough of an army for an overwhelming occupation, and without bothering to master the intricacies of the culture of the people we are helping. Like God will make everything work because he loves America or something. Just amazing.

(Now that's a rant. Notice the lack of footnotes(1).)


(1) Except this one.

 

[BTox]

a). Getting rid of a dangerous man who might attack other countries in the Middle East again someday, with or without the WMD.....

Yes.

b) To distract Americans (in an election year) from the failed U.S. policies in Afghanistan ("Where?") and the search for Osama bin Ladin ("Who?")

Ridiculously false. a, 2003 was not an election year. b, Failed policy in Afghanistan? By who's definition, other than yours? BTW, note this news today?

President Bush praised U.S. intelligence agencies Monday for their role in the capture of a key al Qaeda operative in Iraq.

"Hasan Ghul reported directly to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks," Bush told an audience of health care workers at Baptist Hospital.

Source: al queda capture in iraq

c) To debut the new "Bush Doctrine"...namely, that there's only one superpower in the world now, the "Balance of Power" is a thing of the past, and the US will do whatever the h*ll it wants to, wherever it wants to, and the rest of the world's opinions and ideas don't matter at all.....

Perhaps.

d) Getting rid of some of our huge, unused military stockpile so that we can stimulate new military spending, contracts and weapons R&D....

Wrong again.

 

[Zep]

Zep, I agree.

It just seems like there were some really inteligent things done during the Bush administration, and it doesn't seem like they were done by Bush.

Edited to clarify: I don't think what they did was intelligent, I think what they did was done intelligently. There, that states my opinion a bit better. Swaying the majority of the american public to their side was one amazing feat.

And it's just so frustrating to see a good friend doing silly things too.

I'll state my position again here: Saddam was a VERY BAD guy and needed to be gotten rid of ASAP. However I would suggest that there were many much more "intelligent" ways of getting rid of him that would have had the world cheering the USA instead of rolling their eyes in exasperation. And the US forces were well capable of achieving them too. It would have been a piece of cake...but it would NOT have been good TV or publicity for GWB.

There's no doubt that US intelligence services are good, and they had most of it spot-on (no WMD's, etc, etc) well beforehand. After all, they had had about 10 years to get all the satellite photos and stuff they would ever need. The problem is that it seemed just so obvious that the "intelligence" did not filter to the commander-in-chief. The impression is that his entourage was the blockage point, and that the data were actually altered significantly in a clear effort to create a different "intelligence" that would allow an excuse to do what they desperately wanted to do anyway.

Yes, the American public was swayed to some extent, but that's because they usually believe their own media implicitly (Australians are usually much more cynical of news media - it's a tough game here!). And if the US media wanted to survive, they needed the "big" stories like Iraq. And if they wanted access to those, they had to play ball with the playground bully by HIS rules... In other words, it was your basic propaganda routine.

Perhaps the best example of all this was the laff-a-minute "Christmas turkey" routine. Here, that was seen as a preposterous bit of political re-election strutting by the Reps at the expense of the troops sent to do the dirty work. Truly gag-making, no "glory" in it at all.

 

[LFTKBS]

President Bush praised U.S. intelligence agencies Monday for their role in the capture of a key al Qaeda operative in Iraq.

"Hasan Ghul reported directly to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks," Bush told an audience of health care workers at Baptist Hospital.

Source: al queda capture in iraq

Nice one, BTox. Way to not mention this: "The U.S. official continues: "He’s very high up in the al-Qaeda food chain ... He was just coming into the country, we think probably to foment trouble—but he didn’t quite get the opportunity. The Kurds got him and turned him over us.""

So the war was justified because months after "Mission Accomplished," an Al-Qaeda operative came into Iraq to cause trouble? Five hundred Coalition servicemembers killed, five thousand wounded, and nearly ten thousand Iraqi civilians dead just so we can catch someone coming into Iraq after the fact?

 

[Ladewig]

It might be more accurate to say White House press secretary retreating from WMD claims. It was only last week that Bush, when asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer why he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when intelligence pointed more to the possibility Saddam would obtain such weapons, dismissed the question by saying "So what's the difference?"

As for reasons for the war, I might add the need to remove U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia yet still have a permanent base in the region.

 

[Tricky]

Nice one, BTox. Way to not mention this: "The U.S. official continues: "He’s very high up in the al-Qaeda food chain ... He was just coming into the country, we think probably to foment trouble—but he didn’t quite get the opportunity. The Kurds got him and turned him over us.""

So the war was justified because months after "Mission Accomplished," an Al-Qaeda operative came into Iraq to cause trouble? Five hundred Coalition servicemembers killed, five thousand wounded, and nearly ten thousand Iraqi civilians dead just so we can catch someone coming into Iraq after the fact?

Well, one thing is for sure. Hasan Ghul wasn't being harbored by Saddam when he was captured. Come to think of it, he was being harbored by the coalition forces. Since pro-war folks have previously liked to use the presence of any Al Qaeda people in the country prior to the war as evidence of Saddam supporting terrorism, then by the same logic, the coalitions forces are guilty of supporting terrorism. After all, they control the country now, so it's their fault.

 

[Tmy]

I think alot of people owe Hans blix an apology (Bill Oreilly comes to mind) Everyone used to goof on him cause he couldnt find any WMD, even though we all knew they were under every rock in Iraq.

I guess he wasnt so incompetent. He who laughs last.....

 

[pgwenthold]

It might be more accurate to say White House press secretary retreating from WMD claims. It was only last week that Bush, when asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer why he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when intelligence pointed more to the possibility Saddam would obtain such weapons, dismissed the question by saying "So what's the difference?"

Ah, someone else caught this as well.

Is he seriously suggesting that there isn't a difference between a leader who has a supply chemical or nuclear weapons capable of use and someone who would like to get them? If that is the case, doesn't that make pretty much every ruler in the world a threat? Except maybe the one from New Zealand, I guess.

 

[hammegk]

As for reasons for the war, I might add the need to remove U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia yet still have a permanent base in the region.

We have a winner here. A pipeline to Turkey via Iraq has actual realworld significance. That, and the Afghan-Pakistan pipeline route to the Arabian Ocean, make good geopolitical and economic sense for the US.-- and for everyone else except the Arab oil baron/states.

Ras Tanura, and the Straits, are too problematical to bet ones life on with no oil supply backup.

Just my 2cts ....

 

[headscratcher4]

IT seems to me, the more I reflect upon this, that a couple of issues emerge.

First, I actually don't blame the President to the extent that the inteligence was wrong or faulty. If the CIA tells the President something is a threat, the President must respond. I may disagree with the response -- but to the extent they had better information than I do, obviously they are better able to assess it an act in the national interest.

However, to the extent that the information is wrong and shown to be wrong, than the President owes it to the country to take action. One, admit it was wrong. Two, explain why it was wrong -- i.e. mistakes happen, it was done with the best intentions; the bums at the CIA mislead me.

This later one requires that people be fired. THat CIA information be considered in a new light, and that our intelegence gathering methods be re-assessed and potentially changed.

However, if it is the CIA's fault, they left the Presiedent, Powell, Chaney, Rumsfeld, etc. as sitting ducks before global opinion, and they will never be trusted again (if they ever were...not to mention what it has done to our ally Tony BLair's credibilty). We will have a much harder time on the world stage now making our anti-terror case, if our inteligence is so faulty, and if no one pays a price for misleading the leadership.

On the other hand, if --and this seems more likely to me -- the Administration deliberately forced the inteligence to fit their own ends, silenced credible analysis that conflicted with their pre-conceived ideas and intentions -- the Bay of Pigs Group-think syndrom -- than they deserve to be booted from office.

Yes, Saddam is a bad man, but that isn't the reason we told the world we were invading...we told the world we had to go now because he posed an immenent threat. He didn't...save to his own people.

My point is that 500+ American service men are now dead acting as part of a force used to forstall an attack on the US...an allegation premised on an error or worse a lie. Where is the accountability?

Who is going to be held responsible not for the mistake in the information, but for letting our President go before the Congress and the world in perpetuating a lie?

Methinks there is no honor left. Those who allowed this to happen should stop spinning about how Saddam is evil and trying to figure out new reasons that were sub-rosa but never really talked about -- and resign.

Or, the US people should throw the bums out.