0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 11:48 am
Laughing What a difference a day makes (well, 18 days make)...

Bush, Rice Blame CIA for Iraq Error
Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank

(2003-07-12)
President Bush and his national security adviser yesterday placed full responsibility on the Central Intelligence Agency for the inclusion in this year's State of the Union address of questionable allegations that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 11:53 am
Tartarin wrote:
From the Voice of America, about half an hour ago:
...

I find it an interesting, if not telling, omission that the VOA piece makes no mention of the fact that the British are standing behind the report and claiming it is accurate and based on real intelligence. Whatever the truth is, that information would seem to be an important piece of the story. The only reason I can think of for omitting it would be an intent to paint a specific picture.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 12:03 pm
From www.observer.com, Joe Conason:



Bush Chases Saddam, Ignores Real Threats
by Joe Conason

For the past year, George W. Bush has faced a choice between a real nuclear crisis and a fake nuclear crisis. Unfortunately for the nation and the world, he chose wrongly?-and his mistake has made solving the real crisis more difficult and dangerous.

The phony crisis, as we now learn in greater detail with every passing news cycle, was Saddam Hussein's alleged effort to develop nuclear weapons in Iraq. The President and the National Security Advisor, among others, told us that we faced the threat of a "mushroom cloud" over an American city if our military didn't move swiftly to overthrow the Iraqi despot. The Vice President warned us that Saddam had already "reconstituted" his defunct nuclear program.

Administration officials cited various bits of intelligence material to support these dire assertions?-including Baghdad's importation of machined aluminum tubes, satellite images of construction activity at former nuclear sites and documents concerning the importation of partially enriched uranium "yellowcake" from impoverished Niger in Africa. In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush adduced this evidence as part of his brief for war.

This propaganda campaign was quite effective. By last March, when our troops invaded Iraq, many Americans believed that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that he was plotting to use against the United States.

Since then, we have learned that the President's "evidence" was cooked. The aluminum tubes weren't for uranium enrichment. The construction had nothing to do with any nuclear program. The Niger documents were obvious forgeries. And the excuse for all this falsification is that the President and his aides, notably Condoleezza Rice, only skimmed the relevant reports provided to them by the C.I.A. and the State Department.

That might be acceptable for a legacy student at Yale, but it isn't quite good enough for an American President.

Meanwhile, in North Korea, the real nuclear crisis has festered, with only fitful attention from the Bush administration. Kim Jong-Il has told us he is creating both uranium and plutonium weapons, and we have reason to know that the eccentric dictator isn't bluffing. Yet when the President alluded to the dire Korean situation in his State of the Union address, it was only to justify his urge to invade Iraq. Mr. Bush declared that we "must learn the lessons of the Korean peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq."

A greater threat? Apparently not, at least as far as our intelligence and inspection teams have determined to date. There certainly aren't any nukes in Iraq; in fact, there aren't any "weapons of mass destruction" that were ready for deployment, and it's conceivable that there aren't any at all. Pyongyang probably has one or two nuclear devices already, and may have the means to fire a bomb at a target as distant as the West Coast. As a longtime seller of missile technology, North Korea could also market its uranium, plutonium or finished bombs to our terrorist enemies.

What has Mr. Bush done about this actual threat? He has threatened Mr. Kim with further international isolation, as if that would frighten the most isolated state on earth. He has hinted at the possibility of military action, as if we are willing to sacrifice 50,000 soldiers and a million residents of Seoul. He has insisted that he won't submit to "blackmail," which is his response to North Korean demands for bilateral talks with the United States. He has importuned Russia and China for help, although those regimes are not eager to assist the unilateralists in the White House. By alienating Moscow and Beijing, the invasion of Iraq may have rendered the Korean problem more intractable.

Despite their irritation with the White House, other states worried by Korean instability have tried to come up with an acceptable pretext for negotiations. If the United States won't agree to bilateral negotiations, then everyone can pretend to hold multilateral discussions instead. Then, during the breaks, the North Korean and U.S. diplomats can meet and talk at the vending machines.

Faced with a paranoid, proto-nuclear dictatorship, Mr. Bush has exacerbated the problem with loud rhetoric and dithering policy. Unable to decide whether to negotiate or to seek "regime change" in Pyongyang, his administration has done nothing useful to contain the Korean threat. The United States has no policy, no plan, no discernible purpose in its posture toward North Korea.

What would we do for Pyongyang if its leaders decided to forswear nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in a verifiable agreement with its neighbors and the United States? And what are we prepared to do if Pyongyang refuses to negotiate a secure deal? Nobody knows, including the President himself. Or if he does know, he isn't telling anyone.

Earlier this month, the North Koreans announced that they had finished converting 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into plutonium. If you feel safer because our troops are in Baghdad, you haven't been paying attention.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 12:12 pm
Is Dubya feigning Alzheimers now before the **** hits the fan? Can't input more than one question -- this was the worst of all the press conferances and I suggest he stay out of the heat in the kitchen. His handlers are nuts to let him try and communicate. All I heard were robotic utterances from a mind that is like a steel sieve.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2003 12:18 pm
Awaiting the spin..............
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 02:04 pm
Poindexter's out.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 02:37 pm
Quote:
Poindexter to Resign From Pentagon Post

Thursday, July 31, 2003

WASHINGTON ?- The admiral who developed two controversial Pentagon database programs quickly killed by Congress is leaving his post as head of the Information Awareness Office at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Senior Defense Department officials said Thursday John Poindexter will resign from his advisory position in the "next few weeks."

"My understanding is that he is working through the details, and he expects to, within the next few weeks, offer his resignation," the official said.
Earlier in the week, the Pentagon agreed to kill a "predictive markets" Web site that invited participants to bet on the likelihood of terror attacks and upheaval in the Middle East and other global hotspots. The Future Markets Applied to Predictions program would have allowed traders to buy and sell futures contracts based on their predictions about activities such as attempted assassinations of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or a biological weapons attack on Israel.
The program was killed within days of the start of trader registration after lawmakers said they in no way authorized the funding for the program.

Congress also is refusing to fund the Total Information Awareness program, another project conceived by Poindexter's office. TIA envisioned a massive data collection system that would have been able to track personal information and commercial transactions of just about anybody. It was the subject of piercing scrutiny by privacy advocates.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93446,00.html
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 02:48 pm
It would seem that they always have a scapegoat. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have that ace in the hole or rat in the closet.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 05:17 pm
Yes, but, the number of pointing fingers increase. Every person you lose because of these matters will not be won back!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 05:26 pm
I heard a very puzzling interview this afternoon on a local San Antonio talkshow -- VERY right wing, humorless, very pro-Bush (hardline, nasty) -- with a guy who's written about the FBI going soft on Muslims in this country on orders from the White House which is now caving in to political correctness. Mueller actually GAVE A SPEECH TO SOME AMERICAN-AY-RABS, oh horrors. Only I'm stating the core of the argument politely, while on the show there were explosive snorts and anger. Rove seemed to be Target Number Uno. Bush, they seemed to agree, is in the clutches of madmen but is culpable too.

So who's supporting the administration these days? Maybe just the corporations who are getting their bennies, and of course Tom DeLay. Not a lot of votes there!!

(On the other hand, They're Very Close To Finding WMD's So Watch Out You Liberals.)
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 05:52 pm
July 30, 2003
Web Sites Target Poindexter's Privacy

By Roy Mark

Internet activists concerned about the proposed data mining activities of the Pentagon's controversial Information Awareness Office (IAO) are targeting the privacy of the agency's director, Dr. John Poindexter.
The IAO is an agency of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) created in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. The goal of the agency is to gather intelligence on possible terrorist activities through electronic sources such as the Internet, telephone and fax lines.
Under Poindexter's leadership the IAO has created a firestorm of controversy with its Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, which seeks to capture the "information signature" of people in order to track potential terrorists and criminals. Critics have called it a domestic spy program and the Senate has temporarily blocked funding for the program.
Earlier this week, Poindexter again came under fire for the IAO's latest proposal to predict terrorist events through the online selling of "futures" in terrorist attacks. The Senate again intervened to block the program.
And now activists are tracking Poindexter, posting his personal information including his home phone number and information about his family. One site, Break Your Chains! even has a Join Poindexter sightings page that focuses on his buying habits (a hamster in February).
Another site, Here In Reality, profiles Poindexter as "America's Big Brother." Yet other sites show ways to find his Social Security number and photographs of Poindexter's neighborhood.
All the Poindexter scrutiny has forced him to change his telephone number and for the IAO to remove his biography from the agency's site. The agency has also removed its "Knowledge is Power" logo from the site.
The IAO did not return telephone inquiries from Internetnews.com for this story.
If ever enacted, TIA plans to track individuals through collecting as much information about them as possible and using computer algorithms and human analysis to detect potential criminal activity.
Driving the project will be "revolutionary technology for ultra-large all-source information repositories," which would contain information from multiple sources to create a "virtual, centralized, grand database."
At the center of it all is Poindexter, a retired Navy admiral and former National Security Advisor to Ronald Reagan. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on five counts of deceiving Congress in the Iran-Contra affair and sentenced to six months in prison. The convictions were eventually overturned on the grounds that his immunized congressional testimony had been unfairly used against them.
After leaving the government, Poindexter joined Syntek Technologies, which worked with DARPA to develop an "information harvesting" search engine known as Genoa. Poindexter brought the Genoa concept with him to the IAO.

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2242171
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 09:46 pm
scrat

It isn't the Brits who 'stand behind' the evidence (whatever that means), it is Blair and Straw and cabinet. And as it happens, they aren't letting anyone else look at it - protocol being the justification. It's a claim of little worth.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 09:50 pm
I thought the Brit's "intelligence" was a ten year old thesis written by a college student? c.i.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 10:12 pm
ci

Yes, some of it was, but not this item.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 06:58 am
Meanwhile, the evidence accumulates indicating a resumption of strong U.S. economic growth; the beginnings of a new political infrastructure begin to emerge in Iraq; the peace process in the Middle East continues, albeit with periodic setbacks; North Korea has agreed to multilateral talks concerning their nuclear weapons - something they refused to consider six months ago - and, as a consequence Russia and China will be required to deal seriously with both the crazy man in their neighborhood and the prospect of a rearmed Japan.

I wouldn't bet too heavily on G.W. Bush's defeat next year.

Back from a great vacation in northern California - good (at least fairly good) to encounter you guys again.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 08:20 am
blatham wrote:
scrat

It isn't the Brits who 'stand behind' the evidence (whatever that means), it is Blair and Straw and cabinet. And as it happens, they aren't letting anyone else look at it - protocol being the justification. It's a claim of little worth.

I assume it was obvious to most that I meant that their government is supporting it.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 08:20 am
Welcome back, George.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 08:25 am
george

A pleasure to see you and to read your hopeful take on republican universal heat death.

scrat

Yes, just thought I'd clarify that Jack Straw saying "We stand behind our intelligence" is exactly as credible as Donald Rumsfeld saying "That was a heck of a good decision I made".
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 08:34 am
blatham wrote:
Yes, just thought I'd clarify that Jack Straw saying "We stand behind our intelligence" is exactly as credible as Donald Rumsfeld saying "That was a heck of a good decision I made".

Well, while we're "clarifying" let me just point out that you haven't actually clarified anything about the credibility of Straw's comments, you've merely let us know (in a rather circuitous manner, I might add) what you think about them.

You think Straw is lying. Why? Other than the fact that you would prefer it that way, what reason do you have to think his statement is a lie? Can you give a detailed, specific reason for your belief, or is it just a gut feeling? (You are perfectly entitled to hold and express gut feelings, of course. I'm just curious if it is more than that.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2003 09:07 am
scrat

First, there is no supportive data to back his/their claim (credible intelligence from a third party, apparently Morocco). Second, they use a very feeble excuse in not revealing to anyone outside of the cabinet precisely what intelligence they recieved. Third, one is hard pressed to imagine what information could possibly change the credibility level of what they already knew was false information. Fourth, Blair's government is in deep trouble already and if it's found to be the case that this intel too is crap, he's very likely to lose the next election. Fifth, it would be naive in the extreme to believe that Blair's people and Bush's people are not working in tandem to present as credible a picture as possible on this issue, as both government's are in the frying pan on this one. Sixth, if Straw and Blair can get away with stonewalling this one, it also allows the Bush crowd to (hopefully) dead-end the conversation precisely as they are attempting now - 'we got it from the Brits'.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 10:26:57