Rice admits war was sold on lies

[nino_savatte]

Pick Pick Pick
it is interesting to see what gets picked up and what gets ignored by all the war protesters.
Condoleeza Rice is an honorable woman doing a good job.
Most of you dont understand how much it tweaks the tails of old liberal Democrats that President Bush has a Black Woman in his cabinet.
and they are truly terrified that Condoleeza may run against Hillery Clinton in 2008
Liberal Hillery cannot win against a black conservative woman.
she would loose too many of the people that would vote for her for reasons other than the issues.
in other words it would level the playing field.
when hillery only has herself to offer, politically, no one is very interested.

the War issue is just incidental. kinda borrrring
so, the arabs are bad, oh wait,....no, it is the terrorists shitheads are bad.....
We Know allready.

Owwwwwwwwwwwwww Kayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I wish Rentonite hadn't informed us at the beginning of this post that he was picking the syphilis lesions from his mouth and genitals though, Bernie.

Too much personal info, IYGWIM

 

[scott_forester]

IIRC the Americans were pretty honest about regime change as an objective; it was Blair who corralled them down the WMD path. The entire WMD debacle was a British Government construction that I'm betting the White House wished they'd never touched.

Reading that article she talks about a strategy to alter the Middle East - she doesn't mention force.

"So what I'm describing to you, Senator, is not what you voted for in the war resolution, but the broader strategy of the administration."

I don't think Iraq is going to be a big issue 2008 - both sides leadership voted for it.

 

[Jo/Joe]

How would you like a socitey were the lock you up with out a trial

Ho ho ho, we've both got one.

 

[scott_forester]

Ho ho ho, we've both got one.

You know you sound like an evil santa right?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

"And what would *you* like for Christmas, little boy? I bet you'd like an ID card, wouldn't you?"

"...er, no..."

"Well tough, you're getting one anyway."

 

[scott_forester]

"And what would *you* like for Christmas, little boy? I bet you'd like an ID card, wouldn't you?"

"...er, no..."

"Well tough, you're getting one anyway."

Leave a glass of milk, one mince pie and your biometric data on the fireplace.

 

[Jo/Joe]

and I'll leave you in a nice little cell to go mental for 3 years..

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Some more stuff on the Kerr Report courtesy of the National Security Archive, which has just put up the declassified bits of the report.

"In an ironic twist," the report finds, "the policy community was receptive to technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right." <snip>

The report also finds that intelligence analysts were under constant pressure to find "links between Saddam and [al-Qa'ida]" causing them to take a "purposely aggressive approach" to the issue, "conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links." No such ties were ever found, however, and "the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed."

source

 

[sparticus]

I don't think Iraq is going to be a big issue 2008 - both sides leadership voted for it.

Yeah doh that's the plan and that's why democracy on both sides of the Atlantic is such a farce.

Can you not see how they play us?

As the old saying goes you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time. But in democracies who cares if some of us have figured out they're all a bunch lying, murderous sociopaths, just so long as the majority of people haven't.

Under US and UK democracy the agenda is set by banal soundbites like "Iraq is not the issue" and reinforced by supine political and media machines that ensure we never discuss the real issues and we all keep playing their stupid game.

Iraq will not be the issue Scott precisely because that's what they tell us to think.

 

[scott_forester]

Iraq will not be the issue Scott precisely because that's what they tell us to think.

Maybe, I tend to belive most people just don't give a toss because it doesn't affect them; not because the Goverment are mind control experts.

 

[sparticus]

"We will embed our diplomats, police trainers and aid workers more fully on military bases, traveling with our soldiers and Marines." says Condi

Oh well there goes another absolutely essential prerequiste for the delivery of humanitarian assistance: the neutrality and impartiality of aid workers as set out in the ICRC code and accepted practice of all major humanitarian agencies operating in areas of conflict.

 

[scott_forester]

Oh well there goes another absolutely essential prerequiste for the delivery of humanitarian assistance: the neutrality and impartiality of aid workers as set out in the ICRC code and accepted practice of all major humanitarian agencies operating in areas of conflict.

I think since AID workers in Iraq have been kidnapped and murdered no military escort = no aid?

 

[sparticus]

Well of course you're right Scott because you are undoubtedly the majority view and as I said that is what counts in a democracy.

Forget that people like Condi ARE lying murderous sociopaths that are never held accountable for their lies and murders. Just as long as the dictators of the world get the trains to run on time, all will be well. That's REAL politics right?

Some people might call it in government mind control and others might call it spin and media management. Whatever you call it I have to disagree I think they are experts in it. And that is why stories like this will seek to spin and media manage Iraq in such a way that we all* agree the Iraq is not the story come 2008.

And for what it's worth I reckon a Hillary/Condi 2008 showdown is on the cards

(* or atleast enough of us)

 

[scott_forester]

And for what it's worth I reckon a Hillary/Condi 2008 showdown is on the cards

Scary thing being that people will think Hillary is a the liberal choice

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think since AID workers in Iraq have been kidnapped and murdered no military escort = no aid?

There's a significant difference between aid workers being given a military escort while disseminating aid and aid workers being "embedded" into military units and housed "on base".

I can see quite a few NGOs giving Rice and her shills a two-fingered salute to that particular "suggestion".

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Maybe, I tend to belive most people just don't give a toss because it doesn't affect them; not because the Goverment are mind control experts.

Well, it does affect them, but not in an obvious way. But basically, yes, they don't perceive it as that important if people die in another country because of their government, and if they get worried about that there are all sorts of ethical justifications available ("we're liberating them" et al).

People do have a choice regarding Iraq, but it's not one that they are going to take. There are many groups that have radically different policies regarding Iraq to the mainstream parties, but they're not perceived as being serious alternatives, more like wasted votes. That's systematic.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I wish Rentonite hadn't informed us at the beginning of this post that he was picking the syphilis lesions from his mouth and genitals though, Bernie.

Too much personal info, IYGWIM

Is that what he was doing? I figured it was anal herpes, but I can't tell one end of him from the other.

 

[Grandma Death]

IIRC the Americans were pretty honest about regime change as an objective; it was Blair who corralled them down the WMD path. The entire WMD debacle was a British Government construction that I'm betting the White House wished they'd never touched.

No thats incorrect. Regime change was one of the objectives of the US but the WMD drum was banged just as hard by the Bush administration as much as our goverment. Cant you remember the keynote speech Bush gave to the UN or the speech colin powell gave to the UN where all the lovely ariel photos were shown to the world of the so called 'sites'?

 

[scott_forester]

No thats incorrect. Regime change was one of the objectives of the US but the WMD drum was banged just as hard by the Bush administration as much as our goverment. Cant you remember the keynote speech Bush gave to the UN or the speech colin powell gave to the UN where all the lovely ariel photos were shown to the world of the so called 'sites'?

I can, but I can't remember them mentioning it before Blair pushed for the UN resolutions. The WMDs were a zany British idea for going to war, the US were just going to go anyway.

 

[scott_forester]

I can see quite a few NGOs giving Rice and her shills a two-fingered salute to that particular "suggestion".

Name one western NGO not inside the green zone now? They must be a brave bunch.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I was in the US at the time. The "clear and present danger" from Iraq was the stated justification; "spreading democracy" would not have been sufficient. That is why so many people there are angry about this now.

 

[pbman]

I was in the US at the time. The "clear and present danger" from Iraq was the stated justification; "spreading democracy" would not have been sufficient. That is why so many people there are angry about this now.

It was a bit more than that, you have a very selctive memory today fridge.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;


Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You might want to read former DIA Middle East chief Colonel Pat Lang's devastating critique of the way intelligence was cooked up in the US Scott.

It is telling that, in the more than two-year run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, nobody in the Bush administration sought to commission a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. Perhaps it is unsurprising that they did not want such an estimate. An estimate, if conducted over a period of months, would undoubtedly have revealed deep skepticism about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons program. It would have exposed major gaps in the intelligence picture, particularly since the pullout of U.N. weapons inspectors from Iraq at the end of 1998, and it would have likely undercut the rush to war. It was only as a result of intense pressure from Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, that the intelligence community was finally tasked, in September 2002, to produce an NIE on Saddam's WMD programs. The report was to be rushed to completion in three weeks, so it could reach the desks of the relevant congressional committee members before a vote on war-powers authorization scheduled for early October, on the eve of the midterm elections. As the NIE went forward for approval, everyone knew that there were major problems with it.

The issue of the Niger yellowcake uranium precursor had been a point of controversy since late 2001, when the Italian secret service, SISMI, reported to their American, British and Israeli counterparts that they had obtained documents on Niger government letterhead indicating that Iraq had attempted to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake. The yellowcake lead had been reported to the vice president by his CIA daily-briefing officer, and Cheney had tasked the CIA to dig deeper. Obviously, if the case could be made that Saddam was aggressively seeking nuclear material, no one in Congress could justifiably oppose war. The story proved to be a hoax. In February 2002, the CIA dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to look into the report. Wilson had served in several African countries, including Niger, and had also been the U.S. chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, at the time of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He knew all the players. After several days of meetings in Niger, he returned to Washington and was debriefed by the CIA. The yellowcake story simply did not check out. Case closed.

Contrary to Wilson's expectations, variations on the matter continued to creep into policy speeches by top administration officials. Although CIA Director Tenet personally intervened to remove references to the discredited African uranium story from President Bush's early October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, promoting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, bogus yellowcake information appeared in a December 19, 2002, State Department "fact sheet" on Saddam's failure to disclose his secret WMD programs. As we all know, President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union speech contained the now infamous 16 words citing British intelligence claims about Saddam's seeking uranium in Africa.

source

 

[pbman]

You might want to read former DIA Middle East chief Colonel Pat Lang's devastating critique of the way intelligence was cooked up in the US Scott. source

That hardly matters, once congres passed the Iraq liberation act and clinton signed it,it became the officle position of the us gov't to remove saddam.

That was in 1998.


And what part of shooting at us on thousands of occations isn't an act of war?

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Shooting at us, thousands of times, is all we need to go to war.

Thats how most wars start, one side starts shooting at the other.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

There are any number of choice passages in that Pat Lang article. Here's another.

What does drinking the Kool-Aid mean today? It signifies that the person in question has given up personal integrity and has succumbed to the prevailing group-think that typifies policymaking today. This person has become "part of the problem, not part of the solution."

What was the "problem"? The sincerely held beliefs of a small group of people who think they are the "bearers" of a uniquely correct view of the world, sought to dominate the foreign policy of the United States in the Bush 43 administration, and succeeded in doing so through a practice of excluding all who disagreed with them. Those they could not drive from government they bullied and undermined until they, too, had drunk from the vat.

What was the result? The war in Iraq. It is not anything like over yet, and the body count is still mounting. As of March 2004, there were 554 American soldiers dead, several thousand wounded, and more than 15,000 Iraqis dead (the Pentagon is not publicizing the number). The recent PBS special on Frontline concerning Iraq mentioned that senior military officers had said of General Franks, "He had drunk the Kool-Aid." Many intelligence officers have told the author that they too drank the Kool-Aid and as a result consider themselves to be among the "walking dead," waiting only for retirement and praying for an early release that will allow them to go away and try to forget their dishonor and the damage they have done to the intelligence services and therefore to the republic.

What we have now is a highly corrupted system of intelligence and policymaking, one twisted to serve specific group goals, ends and beliefs held to the point of religious faith. Is this different from the situation in previous administrations? Yes. The intelligence community (the information collection and analysis functions, not "James Bond" covert action, which should properly be in other parts of the government) is assigned the task of describing reality. The policy staffs and politicals in the government have the task of creating a new reality, more to their taste. Nevertheless, it is "understood" by the government professionals, as opposed to the zealots, that a certain restraint must be observed by the policy crowd in dealing with the intelligence people. Without objective facts, decisions are based on subjective drivel. Wars result from such drivel. We are in the midst of one at present.

Drinking the Kool Aid

 

[ViolentPanda]

Name one western NGO not inside the green zone now? They must be a brave bunch.

"Inside the green zone" is not the same as inside a base, embedded into part of a military operation. "Embedded" can be roughly translated as meaning "under military command". That means that if Lt Calley jr decides that you can't deliver medical supplies to the clinic in village x, then the stuff doesn't go there, not quite the same as voluntarily accepting a military escort and staging out of a protected zone, is it?

 

[pbman]

Impeach bin ban



http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20051019-095906-4805r.htm

Why didn't you post this in you mid-east circle jerk anyways?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

"Inside the green zone" is not the same as inside a base, embedded into part of a military operation. "Embedded" can be roughly translated as meaning "under military command". That means that if Lt Calley jr decides that you can't deliver medical supplies to the clinic in village x, then the stuff doesn't go there, not quite the same as voluntarily accepting a military escort and staging out of a protected zone, is it?

You could sort of imagine though, how that idea would arise if the loons currently in charge of US foreign policy tried to figure out "what we did wrong in Iraq" from the point of view of loons who can't ever be wrong about their goals, but only about their methods.

With that approach, it might well occur to them that they ought maybe to have paid a bit more attention to reconstruction, but under military control.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It was a bit more than that, you have a very selctive memory today fridge.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

The attack was absolutely sold to the public on the basis of Hussein being a danger to the US.

edit: and not just a danger, a clear and present danger, an immediate threat