World Intelligence (Russia, France...) on WMD Was the Same


Nascar_James
#1
Looks like before we went to Iraq, every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ...etc) all reached the same conclusion on Iraq's WMD.

So the US isn't soley to blame for the flawed intelligence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051113/..._pr_wh/us_iraq

Quote:

Associated Press:

Bush Didn't Mislead on War, Adviser Says
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - While admitting "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's national security adviser on Sunday rejected assertions that the president manipulated intelligence and misled the American people.

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"Turns out, we were wrong," Hadley told "Late Edition" on CNN. "But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong."

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows echoed Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush said Democrats in Congress had the same intelligence about Iraq, and he argued that many now claiming that the information had been manipulated had supported going to war. The president also accused his critics of making false charges and playing politics with the war.

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean rejected the criticism on Sunday and said, "The truth is, the president misled America when he sent us to war."

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," the party chairman disputed Bush's claim that Congress had the same information — the president withheld some intelligence and some caveats about it, Dean said — and that two commissions had found no evidence of pressure being placed on those within the intelligence community .

In fact, Dean said, how the administration handled the intelligence it received has yet to be determined by a Senate committee.

Contending that the president has not been honest about the size of the deficit as well as the war, Dean said, "This is an administration that has a fundamental problem telling the truth."

Hadley said Bush received dissenting views about the accuracy of intelligence and relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community as conveyed by the CIA director. The national security adviser criticized those who continue to claim that Bush manipulated the intelligence and made misleading statements.

"It is unworthy and unfair and ill-advised, when our men and women in combat are putting their lives on the line, to relitigate an issue which was looked at by two authoritative sources and deemed closed," he said. "We need to put this debate behind us."

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

In a column for The Washington Post, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said he was wrong to have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war and called the intelligence on which he made that decision "deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"The information the American people were hearing from the president — and that I was being given by our intelligence community — wasn't the whole story," wrote Edwards, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004. "Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."

Hadley said issues about the accuracy of U.S. intelligence have not impaired the administration's ability to pursue its policies regarding the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

"We've been able to move our diplomacy forward at the same time we're taking the steps we need to do to improve our intelligence," he said.

Asked why people should believe U.S. claims about the nuclear plans of Iran given the failure of intelligence about Iraq, Hadley said there has been international consensus about Iran.

 
FredBass
#2
the french and the russians were the biggest profiteers under saddam, making billions off the death and torture of hundreds of thousands iraqis.

where's the revulsion?
 
PoisonPete2
#3
total crap!! U.S. intel was so flimsey that analysts could make no conclusion with any confidence. It was the power (or charisma) of Cheney that turned a few heads in the CIA, and after not a few reassigned desks and after many visits to exert pressure by Cheney. Inspectors failed to find anything showing active involvement in the development of fissible material but the inspections were curtailed by the U.S. (not Saddam). Wilson uncovered the lie about Niger and saw his wife 'outed'.

The administration is holding this view and claiming that there was no manipulation of information or undue pressure dispite the gathering evidence to the contrary and they are counting on pressure to maintain the lie. There will be a 'John Dean' type come forward who will see a duty to protect the presidency, not the president.
 
no1important
#4
They are trying to pass the blame, thats all. Russia and France were not part of this illegal invasion, and this is just a cheap shot at them.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Looks like before we went to Iraq, every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ...etc) all reached the same conclusion on Iraq's WMD.

So the US isn't soley to blame for the flawed intelligence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051113/..._pr_wh/us_iraq

Quote:

Associated Press:

Bush Didn't Mislead on War, Adviser Says
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - While admitting "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's national security adviser on Sunday rejected assertions that the president manipulated intelligence and misled the American people.

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"Turns out, we were wrong," Hadley told "Late Edition" on CNN. "But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong."

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows echoed Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush said Democrats in Congress had the same intelligence about Iraq, and he argued that many now claiming that the information had been manipulated had supported going to war. The president also accused his critics of making false charges and playing politics with the war.

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean rejected the criticism on Sunday and said, "The truth is, the president misled America when he sent us to war."

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," the party chairman disputed Bush's claim that Congress had the same information — the president withheld some intelligence and some caveats about it, Dean said — and that two commissions had found no evidence of pressure being placed on those within the intelligence community .

In fact, Dean said, how the administration handled the intelligence it received has yet to be determined by a Senate committee.

Contending that the president has not been honest about the size of the deficit as well as the war, Dean said, "This is an administration that has a fundamental problem telling the truth."

Hadley said Bush received dissenting views about the accuracy of intelligence and relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community as conveyed by the CIA director. The national security adviser criticized those who continue to claim that Bush manipulated the intelligence and made misleading statements.

"It is unworthy and unfair and ill-advised, when our men and women in combat are putting their lives on the line, to relitigate an issue which was looked at by two authoritative sources and deemed closed," he said. "We need to put this debate behind us."

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

In a column for The Washington Post, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said he was wrong to have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war and called the intelligence on which he made that decision "deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"The information the American people were hearing from the president — and that I was being given by our intelligence community — wasn't the whole story," wrote Edwards, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004. "Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."

Hadley said issues about the accuracy of U.S. intelligence have not impaired the administration's ability to pursue its policies regarding the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

"We've been able to move our diplomacy forward at the same time we're taking the steps we need to do to improve our intelligence," he said.

Asked why people should believe U.S. claims about the nuclear plans of Iran given the failure of intelligence about Iraq, Hadley said there has been international consensus about Iran.

geeze NJ.........you is really digging deep , ain't cha?? Just can't wrap your brain around the fact that your heros are war criminals , can you??? sigh.....

like that is supposed to somehow "excuse" the US for its lies??? Reality check....is in order.
 
PoisonPete2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by FredBass

the french and the russians were the biggest profiteers under saddam, making billions off the death and torture of hundreds of thousands iraqis.

where's the revulsion?

Answer - the revulsion is in response to such ridiculous statements. Please explain how the French and Russians made billions "off the death and torture of hundreds of thousands Iraqis" Were they melting gold fillings? rendering fat? This is just inflamatory garbage
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

They are trying to pass the blame, thats all. Russia and France were not part of this illegal invasion, and this is just a cheap shot at them.

of course it is......(cheap shot at them).......and that is what amerika does when it gets itself into a mess by its own doing. It tries to drag everyone else down with them..

( pathetic S.O.B.s that they are)

..........ya know it is laughable...... bringing in the French as an excuse for the US criminality...........after the way the US treated the French when France refused to be party to the US insanity.(criminality)

seems the americans do not know which end is up anymore.......and offer such silliness as arguement.
 
pastafarian
#8
Quote:

Bush Didn't Mislead on War, Adviser Says
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - While admitting "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's national security adviser on Sunday rejected assertions that the president manipulated intelligence and misled the American people.

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

Funny, didn't know Hadley was French or Russian. Try Again.
 
Nascar_James
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by pastafarian

Quote:

Bush Didn't Mislead on War, Adviser Says
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - While admitting "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's national security adviser on Sunday rejected assertions that the president manipulated intelligence and misled the American people.

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

Funny, didn't know Hadley was French or Russian. Try Again.

Ahemmm .. did you read the entire article? Here's an exerpt...

Quote:

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by pastafarian

Quote:

Bush Didn't Mislead on War, Adviser Says
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - While admitting "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's national security adviser on Sunday rejected assertions that the president manipulated intelligence and misled the American people.

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

Funny, didn't know Hadley was French or Russian. Try Again.

Ahemmm .. did you read the entire article? Here's an exerpt...

Quote:

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

yes.......and I heard him say that live........with a straight face. He has his own butt to protect./cover.....as he could have some serious ambitions.
 
Nascar_James
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by pastafarian

Quote:

Bush Didn't Mislead on War, Adviser Says
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - While admitting "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's national security adviser on Sunday rejected assertions that the president manipulated intelligence and misled the American people.

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

Funny, didn't know Hadley was French or Russian. Try Again.

Ahemmm .. did you read the entire article? Here's an exerpt...

Quote:

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

yes.......and I heard him say that live........with a straight face. He has his own butt to protect./cover.....as he could have some serious ambitions.

Ocean, John McCain is a an exceptional individual and good Politician, however he is a closet Democrat. His line of thinking reflects the Democrats more than the Republicans. He is surely viewed as left of center here by many. Once, I recall house speaker Dennis Hastert made a real funny comment, but a true comment nonetheless about John McCain. He said ... "John McCain ... is he a Republican?".

What would he gain by twisting the truth? He's not the type to do it.
 
pastafarian
#12
Fair enough, Nascar. Let's assume Mccain wasn't just repeating RNC talking points or lies that originated with the White House (big assumptions, but let's say).

Why did both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice say without a doubt that Saddam Hussein had no real army or any WMD in 2001, and then suddenly change their tune after 9/11?

Why have Britain and the US combined been unable to produce any documentation of this foreign intelligence?

Why did Judith Miller admit she was wrong in a NYT article a few weeks ago when she wrote several of the key articles that claimed Iraq had an extensive weapons of mass destruction program ahead of the 2003 invasion. Miller wrote, "W.M.D. -- I got it totally wrong. The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them -- we were all wrong."

Here's a quote from Scott Ritter:

Quote:

the war, this dishonest process of deliberately deceiving the American public. And it's not just George W. Bush. For eight years of the Clinton administration, that administration said the same things. The C.I.A. knew, since 1992, that significant aspects of the Iraqi weapons programs had been completely eliminated, but this was never about disarmament...
They knew it, (a) because of their own access to intelligence information, and (b) because of the work of the weapons inspectors. In October of 1992, I personally confronted the C.I.A. on the reality that we had accounted for all of Iraq's ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the Iraqi biological weapons program and had acknowledged that all of the weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A. knew this.

Scott Ritter, was the United Nations' top weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. Before working for the UN he served as an officer in the US marines and as a ballistic missile adviser to General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war.
Why would he lie?

Then there's Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency,who just got the Nobel Peace Prize? (Cue Nelson to Bush;"Ha, ha!)
He told the Security Council when all the Niger bullshit came out and Rice and Rumsfeld were babbling about mushroom clouds from Iraq “The data you have provided is false. It's based on forgeries. There are no nuclear weapons in Iraq. There is no nuclear weapons program. I don't know what you're talking about when you say that we don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, because no mushroom cloud is coming out of Iraq.”

Stephen Hadley. Might as well quote Scott McLellan.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#13
Quote:

What would he gain by twisting the truth? He's not the type to do it.


how does anyone know what type anyone else is??? Not sure what his motive might be........but it does not wash.

One is yet to find a member in US politics that can be believed.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#14
maybe one has just found a politician with some true integrety ..:

Quote:

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards
Sunday, November 13, 2005; B07



I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.

First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.

That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.

Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.

Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.

America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

 
moghrabi
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by pastafarian

Quote:

Bush Didn't Mislead on War, Adviser Says
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 59 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - While admitting "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's national security adviser on Sunday rejected assertions that the president manipulated intelligence and misled the American people.

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

Funny, didn't know Hadley was French or Russian. Try Again.

Ahemmm .. did you read the entire article? Here's an exerpt...

Quote:

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

So what if McCain said so. He is not God yet.
 
moghrabi
#16
Quote:

What would he gain by twisting the truth? He's not the type to do it.

He is an American. Twisting the truth is their trademark nowadays.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

Quote:

What would he gain by twisting the truth? He's not the type to do it.

He is an American. Twisting the truth is their trademark nowadays.



........and he is an american POLITICIAN. ...so the trademark fits .

actually he is evasive and quite slippery .


( Now Edwards........has some reasonable potential... as he is more down to earth /realistic )
 
LeftCoast
#18
Let's be clear here. The other intelligence agencies of most other countries DID believe that Iraq harboured weapons of mass destruction. This is not disputed. For that reason, the UN Security Counsel had authorized Drs. Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradi to conduct on the ground inspections, interview Iraqs military, civilian, political and scientific leaders and authorized US aircraft to do both high level and low level recon flights unharassed over Iraqi airspace between January 2003 and late march when the US invaded.

Lets also be clear, that the absolute gold standard in intelligence - trained agents on the ground - human intel - at the time did not support the US contention. Iraq provided a disclosure in December of 2002 listing all of their previously declared and identified banned weapons and declared that they had been destroyed. THe US of course found the disclosure (which ended up being truthful) to be inadequate. The UNSCOM group under Hans Blix after 4 months of searching found nothing.

Additionally - ONLY THE US and its coalition of brown nosing carpet begars were prepared to go to war on the basis of this intelligence. The other countries which you have referenced, because of the discrepancy between what their intelligence agencies were saying and what the UN people on the ground were saying, without exception wanted to allow the UN inspections regime to run its course and were not prepared to resort to force before this had been done.

If there had been anything resembling a consensus on invading Iraq based on WMD intel, the US would have pressed for a final resolution at the UNSC. As it was, there were three vetos and a majority of both permanent members and elected members of the Security Counsel ready to kill any such resolution.

Don't rewrite history.
 
jimmoyer
#19
Leftcoast's post is correct in ALL of his post, except for a bit of context.

First Hans Blix did complain of shell games run by Hussein.
That fact is documented how Saddam played games with appointments, the use of his "minders" who followed the UN inspectors, the observations of trucks and activity leaving the site of their coming inspections --- all documented honestly by Hans Blix who also hated the US.

Hans Blix correctly used American pressure to muscle Saddam into following through, but Hans Blix also hated the American pressure for what it meant of coming war.

Interesting take on Hans Blix is this double sided view he had.

In addition, one more matter of context.

Prior to these inspections brought on by the pressure of a nearby standing army, were headlines after headline for several years of France leading Germany and Russia calling for an end to the embargo, and an end to the northern and southern no fly zones to accomodate their business contracts with Saddam to resume normal relations.

In 1998 inspectors left the country out of disgust, and because Saddam kicked them out.
 
Reverend Blair
#20
Blix did an honest job though, Jim. So did Ritter for that matter. They finally decided, correctly, that there was no proof that Saddam had WMD.

You also forgot to say why Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998. American members of the team were caught spying.

Russia and France weren't the only ones calling for the end of the embargo either. The US and Britain were the only major powers who wanted it to continue, in fact. It was clear that the sanctions weren't working...Saddam was still ruling the country and people were starving to death.

Britain and the US had a vested interest in either keeping the sanctions going, a political battle they were losing, or going to war with Iraq.
 
moghrabi
#21
Quote:

or going to war with Iraq.

In which they are losing too.
 
Reverend Blair
#22
They aren't losing, Mog...they got their oil contracts. They don't care about dead people or the damage they've done, they just care about keeping those oil fields under the control of a US-friendly government.
 
moghrabi
#23
So now winning a war is by getting contract? What a shame? When is the American citizen going to rise and say enough oil for blood. Not only the American blood but the blood of innocent and not-so-innocent fighters?

Are these people asleep or are they happy with their comfy life that they don't give a rat's poo about anything except their oil guzzling SUV's and well-heated homes?
 
Reverend Blair
#24
Quote:

So now winning a war is by getting contract?

Oil is still what drives the larger geo-political game, Mog. It isn't about putting cheap gas in American SUVs so much as making sure that US corporations are highly profitable and that nobody else controls the oil or the oil money.

Consider the ramifications if OPEC switched to the Euro. The US dollar would drop like a stone.

What would happen if Russia and France controlled the second-largest oil supply in the Middle East? They would have huge political power and that would come directly at the expense of the Americans. Again, the US economy would take a hit but it would also be a potential military advantage for Russia.

Since the end of WWI, oil has been a strategic resource. It's as important to keep it out of the hands of others as to control it yourself, but one pretty much leads to the next.
 
pastafarian
#25
Quote:

The other intelligence agencies of most other countries DID believe that Iraq harboured weapons of mass destruction. This is not disputed.


Of course it's disputed. All intelligence services were pretty sure that Saddam's aresenal had been effectively destroyed by 1999, with some questions remaining as to what biological weapons capacity might have remained.
International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."

Here's a timeline of more recent events (emphasis added):

November 13, 2002: Iraq accepts Resolution 1441 in a letter to Annan from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabr.

November 27, 2002: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin.

December 7, 2002: Iraq submits its declaration "of all aspects of its [weapons of mass destruction] programmes" as required by Resolution 1441. The declaration is supposed to provide information about any prohibited weapons activity since UN inspectors left the country in 1998 and resolve outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that had not been answered by 1998.

The resolution requires the declaration to be "currently accurate, full, and complete," but UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors tell the UN Security Council on December 19 that the declaration contains little new information.

December 19, 2002: Following IAEA and UNMOVIC briefings to the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell states that the Iraqi declaration contains a "pattern of systematic…gaps" that constitute "another material breach" of Iraq's disarmament obligations.

2003
February 5, 2003: Powell briefs the Security Council in an effort to persuade members that Iraq is subverting the inspections process. He publicly presents intelligence for the first time to support Washington's claim that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction and interfering with inspections. France, China, and Russia are not persuaded and support continued inspections.



[/quote][/code]
 
pastafarian
#26
Quote:

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons
Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims

By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

Washington Post
 
Nascar_James
#27
Finally, the President speaks publically in regards to the Democrats flip-flopping or changing their tunes on their position for the war. The President has revealed the Democrats for who they really are ... opportunists and flip-floppers who are willing to hop on board the popularity bandwagon with a blink of an eye. Doesn't matter the reason, as long as they are popular.

It's good that this came out publically, but why did the President wait so long to state this obvious fact?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175464,00.html

Quote:

FOXNews:

Bush: Dems' Iraq Criticism 'Irresponsible'
Monday, November 14, 2005

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska — President Bush escalated the bitter debate over the Iraq war on Monday, hurling back at Democratic critics the worries they once expressed that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat to the world.

"They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now," Bush charged.

Bush went on the attack after Democrats accused the president of manipulating and withholding some pre-war intelligence and misleading Americans about the rationale for war.

"Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past," Bush said. "They're playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible."

The president spoke to cheering troops at this military base at a refueling stop for Air Force One on the first leg of an eight-day journey to Japan, South Korea, China and Mongolia.

During the stopover, he also met privately with families of four slain service members.

After a Latin American trip with meager results earlier this month, the administration kept expectations low for Asia.

"I don't think you're going to see headline breakthroughs," National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said on Air Force One. He dashed any prospect that Japan would lift its ban on American beef imports during Bush's visit and said a dispute with China over trade and currency would remain an issue after the president returns home.

On Sunday, Hadley acknowledged "we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but he insisted in a CNN interview that the president did not manipulate intelligence or mislead the American people.

Iraq and a host of other problems, from the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina to the indictment of a senior White House official in the CIA leak investigation, have taken a heavy toll on the president. Nearing the end of his fifth year in office, Bush has the lowest approval rating of his presidency and a majority of Americans say Bush is not honest and they disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism. Heading for Asia, Bush hoped to improve his standing on the world stage.

"Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," Bush said.

He quoted pre-war remarks by three senior Democrats as evidence of that Democrats had shared the administration's fears that were the rationale for invading Iraq in 2003. Bush did not name them, but White House counselor Dan Bartlett filled in the blanks.

—"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

—"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as (Saddam Hussein) is in power." — Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

—"Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion." — Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.

"The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world — and that person was Saddam Hussein," Bush charged.

In the Senate, 29 Democrats voted with 48 Republicans for the war authorization measure in late 2002, including 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and his running mate, John Edwards of North Carolina. Both have recently been harshly critical of Bush's conduct of the war and its aftermath.

On Capitol Hill, top Democrats stood their ground in claiming Bush misled Congress and the country. "The war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history," Kerry told a news conference.

Bush is expected to get a warmer welcome in Asia than he did earlier this month in Argentina at the Summit of the Americas, where Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez led a protest against U.S. policies and Bush failed to gain support from the 34 nations attending for a hemisphere-wide free trade zone.

Japan, the first stop on Bush's trip, and Mongolia, the last, are likely to give him the most enthusiastic response, while China and South Korea probably will be cooler but respectful.

In South Korea, Bush also will attend the Asia Pacific Economic Conference summit in Busan, where 21 member states are expected to agree to support global free-trade talks. The summit also is expected to agree to put early-warning and information-sharing systems in place in case of bird flu outbreaks.

"It is good for the president to show up in Asia and say, `We care about Asia,' because that is in doubt in the region," said Ed Lincoln, senior fellow in Asia and Economic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

At Bush's first stop, in Kyoto, Japan, the president will deliver what aides bill as the speech of the trip on the power of democracy, not only to better individual lives but contribute to the long-term prosperity of nations.

 
no1important
#28
"W" is just trying to pass the blame for this. If it was going well, he would take all the credit.
 
LeftCoast
#29
Let's be clear here. The other intelligence agencies of most other countries DID believe that Iraq harboured weapons of mass destruction. This is not disputed. For that reason, the UN Security Counsel had authorized Drs. Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradi to conduct on the ground inspections, interview Iraqs military, civilian, political and scientific leaders and authorized US aircraft to do both high level and low level recon flights unharassed over Iraqi airspace between January 2003 and late march when the US invaded.

Lets also be clear, that the absolute gold standard in intelligence - trained agents on the ground - human intel - at the time did not support the US contention. Iraq provided a disclosure in December of 2002 listing all of their previously declared and identified banned weapons and declared that they had been destroyed. THe US of course found the disclosure (which ended up being truthful) to be inadequate. The UNSCOM group under Hans Blix after 4 months of searching found nothing.

Additionally - ONLY THE US and its coalition of brown nosing carpet begars were prepared to go to war on the basis of this intelligence. The other countries which you have referenced, because of the discrepancy between what their intelligence agencies were saying and what the UN people on the ground were saying, without exception wanted to allow the UN inspections regime to run its course and were not prepared to resort to force before this had been done.

If there had been anything resembling a consensus on invading Iraq based on WMD intel, the US would have pressed for a final resolution at the UNSC. As it was, there were three vetos and a majority of both permanent members and elected members of the Security Counsel ready to kill any such resolution.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#30
Quote:

The President has revealed the Democrats for who they really are ... opportunists and flip-floppers who are willing to hop on board the popularity bandwagon with a blink of an eye

not at all.........The so called prez has revealed HIMSELF for who he is. the spin game is all that the bushcon supporters know.....having learned from the worst of their kind.

He is under serious pressure.........and speaking of "popularity"........ is dropping in the polls enough to warrant another phony terror alert... ( maybe even "red" this time) Why on earth would he be on a mission now to "improve his image".??? Not sure how he can begin to repair the strained relations he has created with other nations. No one trusts him. Silly man.......just does not get it.....as all the rhetoric /spin/ cosmetics in the world cannot cover the stench of this regime now. Once he lost credibility /integrity ........it ain't gonna be easy to get it back........as he now has to PROVE himself and prove that he did not fecking lie. The evidence points to the opposite and the world knows it.

If the Iraq thing was going as he naively anticipated.......he would be gloating like a bully rooster by now. He has created his own black hole.


what he is doing is called projection..... IE.. blaming others for the very characteristics he and his regime has. He is yet to take responsibility for any of his errors , misjudgments etc. but in U.S. politics .......he can get away with it.....and the sheeple let him. In fact they let him get away with murder.....as after all he is "the prez" a role /position to be worshiped.

(that old Hail Caesar , complex is alive and well states side now)
 

Similar Threads

30
Russia takes Control of World Gas haha
by darkbeaver | Jul 30th, 2008
11
BBC Canada but no CBC France/Russia
by dumpthemonarchy | Mar 24th, 2008
7
World Juniors. Canada 3 - Russia 0
by DurkaDurka | Jan 5th, 2007