Haliburton News

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Jun 2nd 2003, 3:14 pm

mglenn wrote:Sorry, had to work on my real job and was delayed in posting... :D
Unacceptable! :P

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Jun 2nd 2003, 4:58 pm

mglenn wrote:Oh and then there's the fact that every intel agency in the world believed that they had them (Were they all wrong? What does it mean if they were?).
Ha ha ha! No doubt that the intelligence was definitely based on something, but the validity has come under VERY serious question as of late. I'll quote agonist.org and post their links:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/ ... 81539.html

The Australian Defense Minister, Robert Hill, has conceded that flawed intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons capability may have influenced Australia's decision to join the war against Iraq and has backed a thorough and open review of the information.

But in an interview with the Herald, Senator Hill said it was too early to say that false conclusions were drawn about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability and he believed Australia was justified in joining the invasion.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... &ncid=1480

US Secretary of State Colin Powell was under persistent pressure from the Pentagon and White House to include questionable intelligence in his report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction he delivered at the United Nations last February, US News and World Report reported.

According to the report, the draft contained such questionable material that Powell lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit."

Cheney's aides wanted Powell to include in his presentation information that Iraq has purchased computer software that would allow it to plan an attack on the United States, an allegation that was not supported by the CIA, US News reported. The White House also pressed Powell to include charges that the suspected leader of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer prior to the attacks, despite a refusal by US and European intelligence agencies to confirm the meeting, the magazine said.

US News also said that the Defense Intelligence Agency had issued a classified assessment of Iraq's chemical weapons program last September, arguing that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=2854519

A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0306 ... intell.htm

The US News and World Report website now has put the article which includes Powell's statements about the draft UN report as "bull____." It is entitled "Truth and consequences: New questions about U.S. intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass terror."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/ ... 26543.html

Australia's spies knew the United States was lying about Iraq's WMD programme. So why didn't the Government choose to believe them? Andrew Wilkie writes.

'Intelligence" was how the Americans described the material accumulating on Iraq from their super-sophisticated spy systems. But to analysts at the Office of National Assessments in Canberra, a decent chunk of the growing pile looked like rubbish. In their offices on the top floor of the drab ASIO building, ONA experts found much of the US material worthy only of the delete button or the classified waste chute to the truck-sized shredder in the basement.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/pol ... ory=411301

Tony Blair's sensational pre-war claim that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "could be activated within 45 minutes" was based on information from a single Iraqi defector of dubious reliability, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

British intelligence sources said the defector, recruited by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, told his story to American officials. It was passed on to London as part of regular information-sharing with Washington, but British intelligence chiefs considered the "45 minutes" claim to be unreliable and uncorroborated by any other evidence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 48,00.html
(this one may be questionable)

Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned.

Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political bosses, Tony Blair and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5.

The meeting took place at the Waldorf hotel in New York, where they discussed the growing diplomatic crisis. The exchange about the validity of their respective governments' intelligence reports on Iraq lasted less than 10 minutes, according to a diplomatic source who has read a transcript of the conversation.

The foreign secretary reportedly expressed concern that claims being made by Mr Blair and President Bush could not be proved. The problem, explained Mr Straw, was the lack of corroborative evidence to back up the claims.

Much of the intelligence were assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other sources.

Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz...he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence.

Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces".

What are called the "Waldorf transcripts" are being circulated in Nato diplomatic circles. It is not being revealed how the transcripts came to be made; however, they appear to have been leaked by diplomats who supported the war against Iraq even when the evidence about Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction was fuzzy, and who now believe they were lied to.

(Edited to add links)
----------------
The list goes on....
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Jun 3rd 2003, 4:22 am

mglenn wrote:
....yet I still don't see Saddam or Osama's heads on sticks
And yet you can't appreciate that neither of them has their network of power that they had when we started this. . . . As it stands now both are on the run and using want resources they have to stay hidden and not to plan attacks on the US.
I don't mean to pick on you, but you make it so easy. (All in good fun :) )

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention the last couple weeks:

(sorry, lost the link)
Abu Mohammed al-Ablaj told the London-based al-Majallah magazine that "al Qaida (does not rule out) using Sarin gas and poisoning drinking water in U.S. and Western cities."

"We will talk about (these weapons) then and the infidels will know what harms them. They spared no effort in their war on us in Afghanistan. They should not therefore rule out the possibility that we will present them with our capabilities," the magazine quotes al-Ablaj as saying in an e-mail interview last week. The interview was published in the latest edition of al-Majallah, dated May 25.

Some U.S. officials play down the threat, but others point out that al-Ablaj had communicated with the magazine prior to the suicide attacks earlier this month in Saudi Arabia, warning that al-Qaida was about to stage a major offensive in the kingdom.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/ ... 97384.html

Fugitive al-Qaeda leaders still have the ability to send orders to their followers in ways that shield their location and keep intelligence agencies guessing, United States officials said.

Al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan after the US bombed their bases after the September 11, 2001 attacks on America were still able to get orders out to followers, the officials said. "I think it is possible there are guys in Iran and/or guys in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area [who] are ordering things and things get done," one US official said.

The fugitives use mobile phones that are quickly discarded, create email accounts for one-time use and employ human couriers to pass along verbal messages, US officials and terrorism experts said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... May24.html

The Bush administration, alarmed by intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda operatives in Iran had a role in the May 12 suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia, has cut off once-promising contacts with Iran and appears ready to embrace an aggressive policy of trying to destabilize the Iranian government, administration officials said.

A major factor in the new stance toward Iran consists of what have been called "very troubling intercepts" before and after the Riyadh attacks, which killed 34 people, including nine suicide bombers. The intercepts suggested that al Qaeda operatives in Iran were involved in the planning of the bombings.

http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_spe ... 561-1.html

Saddam Hussein is alive and hiding inside Iraq with his two sons, according to exiled former Iraqi generals who have returned to Baghdad. The Iraqi dictator, they say, is rebuilding the Baath Party under a new name and communicating with trusted supporters with the intention of returning to power.

Saddam has changed the name of his political organization to “Auda,” which means return, said Maj. Gen. Tawfiq al-Yassiri in an interview with Reuters. “Saddam Hussein prepared for every eventuality, including the total collapse of his regime. He does not leave anything to chance and has ample means of communication,” Yassiri said. “He uses different tools at his disposal to issue orders for his followers to spread chaos.”

The current level of chaos in Iraq works to Saddam’s advantage, said Maj. Gen. Saad Obeidi, a psychological warfare specialist who is working with U.S. forces. “Time has always been the backbone of Saddam’s strategy,” Obeidi said. “He is a man who knows the psychology and sociology of Iraq. The looting and disorder we see now fall in his favor.”

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -2698r.htm

al Qaeda is developing bombs with radioactive material from industrial or medical facilities, and an al Qaeda document obtained in Afghanistan revealed that the group had sketched out a crude device capable of causing a nuclear blast, the report said.

A security notice made public by the State Department yesterday stated that "al Qaeda and sympathetic terrorists groups continue to demonstrate their interest in mass-casualty attacks using chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons."
-------------------------------
Sure sounds to me like al Qaeda are doing fine, and Saddam still has operations going on. I thought we were giving up our freedoms and congress neutered itself so these things could be taken care of... oh well...I guess if the supreme court elects him again, he'll get 4 more years to get these things done...
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Jun 3rd 2003, 10:26 am

When it comes to intelligence and proof one thing always shocks me. Why does the american/world public need to know? How does it help the situation? Ever hear of Coventry? Intelligence is held back all the time to protect sources and our forces. So as far as I'm concerned the lack of intelligence available is in no way proof that it does not exist.

Check out The Puzzle Palace
Saddam Hussein is alive and hiding inside Iraq with his two sons, according to exiled former Iraqi generals
Was this according to Baghdad Bob? :D Seriously though... The US is has already begun pulling its assests out of Saudia Arabia and will almost certainly setting up long term points of persence in Iraq. Will we face attacks from the extremists? Sure... But Saddam returning to power... not likely. How would he do it? What forces would he have to secure himself against the US?
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jun 3rd 2003, 11:38 am

mglenn wrote:Lance, interesting article, but as soon as they made the argument for containment it lost its crediblity with me. Containment did not work with Hitler, Did not work with N. Vietnam, has not worked with Cuba, and certainly isn't working with N. Korea. And yet this same site tries to convince you that Bush is as bad if not worse than Hitler... One side or the other folks... one side or the other.

I moved fnordboys post and my response to A New Tax Discussion.
Yet containment did work with the Soviets.

Intervention worked with N.Vietnam? With Cuba? (Remember Bay of Pigs)When?

Best,

Lance Man

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jun 3rd 2003, 11:42 am

fnordboy wrote:
lance wrote: The Supreme Court intervened on Bush's behalf in 2000, so will they do so again 2004?

Best,

Lance Man
Actually I doubt they will need to. The majority of this country praise this crook now. He did a great thing, some buildings fall down, wage war with no real world backing, bomb the s**t out of them till we "win"....yet I still don't see Saddam or Osama's heads on sticks hmmmm, and best of all he gave the majority of his voters a nice tax cut. Of course if you are poor and democrat you won't be seeing much...ooops :oops:

He is a shoe in next election. The Democratic candidates are a friggin joke. It is a sad election where the best people running are either Al Sharpton or Hillary Clinton (if she does, which i doubt till 2008). Scary :shock:
I don't necessarily buy the whole "Bush is a shoe in" deal. That's buying into spin at the moment. His poll numbers on domestic issues are down to pre 9/11 levels. And it is a loooong way to November 2004, anything can happen.

Granted, at the moment things don't look great (unless you like Bush, then it is quite ducky), but don't give up quite yet.

Best,

Lance Man

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Jun 3rd 2003, 11:46 am

lance wrote: I don't necessarily buy the whole "Bush is a shoe in" deal. That's buying into spin at the moment. His poll numbers on domestic issues are down to pre 9/11 levels. And it is a loooong way to November 2004, anything can happen.

Granted, at the moment things don't look great (unless you like Bush, then it is quite ducky), but don't give up quite yet.
It is not so much of him being a "shoe in" that bothers me about the whole thing. It is more that there are just no good Democratic candidates (that I am aware of). That is what will hurt us most.

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jun 3rd 2003, 11:52 am

mglenn wrote:Sorry, had to work on my real job and was delayed in posting... :D
Hate when that happens.

Best,

Lance Man

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jun 3rd 2003, 11:54 am

fnordboy wrote:
lance wrote: I don't necessarily buy the whole "Bush is a shoe in" deal. That's buying into spin at the moment. His poll numbers on domestic issues are down to pre 9/11 levels. And it is a loooong way to November 2004, anything can happen.

Granted, at the moment things don't look great (unless you like Bush, then it is quite ducky), but don't give up quite yet.
It is not so much of him being a "shoe in" that bothers me about the whole thing. It is more that there are just no good Democratic candidates (that I am aware of). That is what will hurt us most.
Been some talk of Kerry hooking up with McCain. That would be interesting.

Best,

Lance Man

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Jun 3rd 2003, 1:25 pm

mglenn wrote:Was this according to Baghdad Bob? :D Seriously though...
Nope, our CIA:

http://www.agonist.org/archives/003085.html

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has internal documents that make it clear Saddam Hussein is alive and hiding in greater Baghdad, protected by an underground resistance network of tribesmen and former Baath officials, US administration officials told.

"There is a resistance network and it is stronger than we originally thought," one administration source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Saddam is moving around inside Iraq and he's got a lot of support," another US government official said.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Jun 3rd 2003, 1:29 pm

mglenn wrote:When it comes to intelligence and proof one thing always shocks me. Why does the american/world public need to know? How does it help the situation?
So, when they say they have to move you out of your house, and arrest your parents, and the only explaination they give is "national security", you'd be ok with that?

What about accountability? Should we just blindly follow what our government says and does, just because its our government? Do you seriously beleive that everything they do is the "right" thing?

That sounds extremely naive to think that people in our government will never hold their own interests above the nations (or the worlds).
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Jun 3rd 2003, 3:33 pm

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has internal documents...
But given the argument so far we should dismiss this out of hand because it’s just the Administration lying to us?
Once again I'm not saying that Hussein is dead, but given that it took the US only days to wipe out his military, where is he going to get the forces needed to regain power when we have a presence already established there?

On another depressing or uplifting take on this is that with every attack on us we gain more intelligence into these groups. The trail they leave provides us with more information and more leads to follow. So although some may die, more can then be saved. As I have stated you cannot eliminate evil from the world, but that doesn't mean you should stick your head in the sand and pretend its not there.


lance wrote:Yet containment did work with the Soviets.
Containment did not work with the soviets! We beat them by out spending them on military development. We ran their economy dry trying to keep up with us.
Intervention worked with N.Vietnam? With Cuba? (Remember Bay of Pigs)When?
Neither of these were true interventions. JFK did not support the invasion of Cuba. And Vietnam was not a war if you remember it was a Police Action. It was containment all the way. We attempted to just keep the North at bay and never did any real damage to them. Meanwhile the Chinese and Soviets just kept flooding equipment and aid in.

Iraq and N. Korea do not have that support structure behind them and neither to these terrorist groups. The NOW NOW NOW mentality does not take into account that in rebuilding and restructuring the oil market in the middle east we are starving off the financial structure that feeds these terrorist.

This is also why you hear almost nothing from the administration on N. Korea. They already have no economy. Their collapse in inevitable! And the only chip they have left is "The Bomb", but if they use it, that’s it! Game over! Thanks for playing! Call us in 30 years when you stop glowing! They gain nothing from it... Americans do not kowtow, and they especially don't do it when you launch a missile at them!
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Jun 3rd 2003, 3:57 pm

mglenn wrote:But given the argument so far we should dismiss this out of hand because it’s just the Administration lying to us?
Once again I'm not saying that Hussein is dead, but given that it took the US only days to wipe out his military, where is he going to get the forces needed to regain power when we have a presence already established there?
I'm not saying he'll ever become a great threat, but it seems as if he'll be quite a thorn in our side until we can get "his head on a stick". From what I remember, the French Resistance in WWII was quite bothersome to Germany. Before this started, I figured the same thing could happen with Saddam. You don't need a large military force to still cause some havoc.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Jun 3rd 2003, 6:15 pm

The thing that scares me the most about Bush is how his strong faith affects his decisions. It bothers me that he puts what he feels is his “religious duty to protect the American people” ahead of what the people want. It’s democracy, of the people, by the people, and for the people”, but faith can override that. I’m sorry, but NO!, the peoples voice should always come first.

I know that the government doesn’t and can’t always divulge all the necessary intelligence information. But in the case of WMD, I believe it was necessary. The US asks the UN (the court) to justify the punishment of Iraq for processing WMD’s. There wasn’t enough evidence for the jury (the UN and the world populous) to convict. But yet Iraq is considered guilty anyway? We preach “Justus” and “Democracy”, but somehow we are above their boundaries. And now that the regime is collapsed, why can’t we see the real “evidence”. You can’t convict a murderer by saying that the prosecutor has the evidence, but the jury can’t see it, you’ll just have to believe what he/she tells you. And that is one life, we are talking about risking thousands of lives and impacting millions more, doesn’t that make the “evidence” that much more crucial. My generation has been raised on lying politicians, you want my support?, show me WMD’s.

A note on the electoral college. My state gets three votes so the candidates don’t care to visit us or address our issues. Plus the majority of the state votes republican in the presidential race every time. So my vote is meaningless, I can vote with the majority and not affect the outcome, and I can vote against it and not affect the outcome. So when it comes to the president, the only reason to vote is just to fill out the ballot. No wonder my peers are apathetic to the process. Why should my one vote have any less weight than the person in California? Does my opinion matter any less? Guess so.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
Nostradamus
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1213
Joined: Jun 29th 2002, 6:42 am
Location: No matter where you go, There you are.

Post by Nostradamus » Jun 3rd 2003, 7:29 pm

mglenn wrote:But given the argument so far we should dismiss this out of hand because it’s just the Administration lying to us?
Why not? The last Bush lied about Iraq:
The first Bush administration did not feel that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait provided sufficient justification for a U.S. military response in the eyes of the American public. But this problem would go away if it became apparent that Iraq wasn't going to stop with Kuwait, but also planned to attack Saudi Arabia.

The Bush administration also had the problem of where to stage its troops for a U.S. invasion of Kuwait and Iraq. Saudi Arabia was needed to provide a starting point for the American force. To address these problems the Bush administration told the Saudis that Iraqi troops were massing to invade them. The Saudis sent out investigators to check the U.S. claim and found nothing. So the Bush administration provided the Saudis with secret satellite photos showing a huge Iraqi force massed on their border. At the same time the Bush administration also ordered commercial satellite firms to turn off their coverage of the border between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But there was one loophole in their plans—Russia's satellites.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, images from Russia's spy satellites have become commercially available. And what do the Russian images from that time show for the border between Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Absolutely nothing. No Iraqi tanks, no trucks, no planes, no soldiers. American fighter planes can be seen, parked tip-to-tip, but no Iraqi military presence is anywhere near the Saudi border.

The first Bush administration faked satellite photos to gain Saudi participation in its war, and to convince the American people that Hussein must be stopped from conquering the whole region.
Quoted from:

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/claim5.shtml
I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.
-- Clarence Darrow

I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.
-- Mark Twain

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 0 guests