THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Sumac said

"I hope, for the sake of your nation, that you are being too pessimistic here. What if he were to say something like: "We relied too heavily on the intelligence gathering of others, and on certain assumptions about its' quality. We have learned from that, and it is unlikely to happen again." ? "


Appreciate those thoughts Sumac. But politics is just as vicious here as it is anywhere else. He could say we were misled by other's intelligence sources, but that doesn't absolve guilt of being fundamantally wrong about wmd. Even if we were to accept Blair's honest mistake, it is still a mistake, and a pretty big one at that. Blair's political enemies here are sharpening their knives. Even to day the Conservatives withdrew their support for the latest enquiry into intelligence failures, leaving themselves room to accuse the govt of cover up and deceit. The Butler enquiry is now set up by the govt and supported only by the govt party, and whatever it concludes, others will say it was a waste of time and effort.

On top of all that, I don't think Tony Blair was being honest about the necessity for war. He had promised bush his support. Blair is not stupid. He (imo) must have been well aware from intelligence sources, the true state of Iraqi military capabilities. And it doesnt surprise me in the slightest that he didn't convey the full extent of his knowledge into the public domain. From the outset, it was a question of how can we justify this military campaign, and how can we get the people to support it?
The campaign itself might have been worthy: in my opinion it is too early to tell. But the reasons and justifications given to the public were completely bogus, and try as he will, Blair can't escape that.

Well, so many Americans think that only this much is true:
"they (Bush) think they can attack nations pre-emptively." And they applaud the idea, "stop those damn terrorists before they kill you":

The rest they believe is bunk

They perceive the left to be guilty of almost all the left accuses the right. In fact they not only think the left is mostly wrong, they think the left is mostly nuts

Personally, I think much of the left is merely adolescent.

Are you suggesting that British intelligence knew that the American intelligence was wrong; or worse, that they knew that Bush was twisting, distorting, exaggerating in order to justify war, and that Blair just followed suit, knowing that it was all bogus, and that he was lying and deceiving your country?

Is there no wiggle room for him in this morass?

I was disappointed. Aristide evolved into a tyrant the people of Haiti were willing to risk death to remove. I had hoped Bush et al had the courage to actually force that gangster to resign. The people of Haiti would have been justifiably grateful if Bush et al had forced him into exile.

Then, of course you also know that I was born and raised in Washington, D.C.. I moved out of there upon graduation and lived in upstate New York for more than 20 years.

After enough of that, I moved to Texas. Admittedly, I'm merely "a late arrival."

Fascinating interview with David Kay in today's Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160916,00.html

couple of extracts



Does this mean Bush sat on his hands and allowed 911 to happen, before he took action?



Most of Saddam's murderous activities took place when he was a friend of the US against Iran, and after Iraq war 1 when the US did not support uprisings by the Shias. The second sentence here is very strange. What was he referring to? America has a history of going to war by mistake, only to find out afterwards that it did the right thing? Is that it? Don't be silly Dr Kay.

Sumac, you wrote




No, I'm not. But there are lots of people who accuse Blair of exactly that. Firstly British and American intelligence is shared, and has been since WW2. So I don't think the British SIS had a better overview of the situation than its American equivalent. But I do believe, in fact its now become clear, that the intelligence that was made public was exaggerated to justify the case for war. Tony Blair's director of communications, Alistair Campbell actually chaired meetings of the JIC (joint intelligence committee) in order to put some "backbone" into what was to be made public. Are we seriously to believe that Blair ordered the intelligence that was to be made public to be "sexed up", and then went on to implicitly believe every word of it himself? All I'm saying is that intelligence made available to ministers is not necessarily the same as intelligence ministers make available to us.

But fortunately for Blair, he appointed Lord Hutton to pronounce on the circumstances surrounding Dr David Kelly (Iraq wmd weapons expert), who found Blair to be innocent of lying or distortion. So officially he's in the clear for now. But what Lord Hutton did not comment on was the veracity of the wmd claims themselves, i.e. Blair acted honourably, and if he made a mistake it was an honest one. Well Blair certainly made a mistake. He took this country to war specifically to find and destroy Iraqi wmd which threatened us, and when we got there, we found there weren't any, and had not been any for some time. (according to David Kay)

Is there wiggle room? Well its not for the want of wiggling. The trouble for Blair is that by his own arguments, the best that can be said is that he took us to war as a result of an "honest" mistake. People aren't just going to say "ok it was a mistake, so what?" Its too big an issue. No I don't think Blair can survive much longer. Iraq is like an open wound that people keep picking on. If I had any advice to offer it would be to call an early general election. (govt can do this at any time). Blair would most likely win. Having done so, he could then step down in favour of Gordon Brown and retire from the scene with dignity. But there is a real danger that Blair might be forced to resign, or just decide he's had enough and walk, that would not be good imo.

Sticky wicket.

or something about making beds and lying on it.

Hey Steve, wotcher mate.

Steve's quote, "Blair is finished, and I'm sorry about that. It's down to his heart's wish to do the right thing overcoming his head in not understanding the quality of the people who were running things." Remember when I suggested this a few days ago?

Hi McTag wotchin is wot i do best.

email kaput. give us a shout via a2k pm

ci no sorry I didn't pick up on that. You are usually ahead of the game!

I marched against this sorry mess, me and a million others.

Why'n't they lissen?

Read terrible piece by robert fisk in todays independent. Terrible because he more or less says America has more interest in a shia sunni war than a combined shia sunni resistance to occupation. The implication being...?

Steve; did you by any chance miss Sumac's other post? It really is worth reading a second time… because it paints the good, the bad and the ugly in a manner nearly devoid of blind loyalties and partisan rhetoric. I realize its election year; but don't we owe it to ourselves when assessing our leader's performance to separate the truth from the purposely damaging, biased perspectives? As long as I've been alive; both sides of the political fence have attempted to spin, exaggerate and paint an overall depiction of failure and incompetence of current leadership at every possible turn. Doesn't common sense tell us that the truth probably resides somewhere in the middle of all of the overly partisan rhetoric?
I too am bothered by the implications of the Patriot Act (and the so-called "Patriot Act II). So much so that I am tempted to assist in replacing Bush. Unfortunately; the major political players live in this "black and white" fantasy world where disagreement on specific details seems to mandate opinions 180 degrees from those of their opponents. Is it not possible to believe in a strong foreign policy AND preservation of constitutional rights? Since I believe that a strong foreign policy is necessary right now; I have NO CHOICE but to vote for a candidate who's every action (practically) degrades the constitution as well as the environment.
I should note that reading the opinions of the more liberal view holders and ABB's on these threads have swayed my opinions greatly. Even some of the most absurd posters (you probably know who you are) have provided insights and links that have impacted my own thoughts. The most powerful voices, however, are those that skip the partisan muck-throwing and attack the issues themselves. I find it laughable when people need to categorize advocates of one side or the other with labels like un-American or fascist simply for stating their opinions on a PARTICULAR ISSUE.

Sumac posted this article a while back and I'm disappointed that it was ignored. I would be very interested in reading the opinions, of both sides, on the merits of the points made in it. I hope it is possible to discuss the various assessments of intelligence contained in this piece without the conversation degrading into a political shouting match.

I concur. It is well worth a good, thoughtful, read.

Steve, Not "ahead of the game." Just a lucky guess.

OCCOM Bill, if this were the only thing Bush was guilty of, I could possibly get him the benefit - but, he is absolutely wrong in everything he has done over the last three years. The USA will pay for it for the next 25. This deserves one thing only, a swift and forceful kick in the butt on the way out the door (if I had my way, it would be into a jail because in many cases his actions have been criminal......)

"he is absolutely wrong in everything he has done over the last three years." -In BillW's opinion...

Gee, I think I hear an echo.