Bush Administration passes the buck

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » July 11, 2003, 11:56 am

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... raq_cia_dc

So yesterday we have someone reporting that the CIA asked that the passage regarding Iraq and uranium be changed or omitted, and today we hear that the CIA ok'ed the speech. No one wants to stand up and take responsibility for their mistake, typical.

Not saying that Bush is lying, or that the CIA is lying, frankly I take everything I hear from any goverment agency/official with a grain of salt.

PS - By Bush, I mean his Administration, not just him personally.

Mort · Post by **Mort** » July 11, 2003, 12:23 pm

WoW! This could turn into another Anti Bush thread..... Imagine that.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 11, 2003, 12:52 pm

WoW! This could turn into another Anti Bush thread..... Imagine that.

Never would have guessed that from the thread header!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 11, 2003, 12:55 pm

Passing the buck and redirecting blame are the core of American politics. Both parties do this, and it's only getting worse.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 11, 2003, 3:38 pm

masteen wrote:Passing the buck and redirecting blame are the core of American politics. Both parties do this, and it's only getting worse.

And the worst part is, I'm not surprised at all. I wouldn't jump to conclusions and say this thread is anti Bush. But rather anti American politics. It could very well turn into a cons v lib if you pissers chalk it up that way as per the norm.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 11, 2003, 3:53 pm

Truant wrote:
masteen wrote:Passing the buck and redirecting blame are the core of American politics. Both parties do this, and it's only getting worse.
And the worst part is, I'm not surprised at all. I wouldn't jump to conclusions and say this thread is anti Bush. But rather anti American politics. It could very well turn into a cons v lib if you pissers chalk it up that way as per the norm.

Not sure if you saw my post in the other thread, but having just read your above post, I will emphatically say, "Exactly."

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 12, 2003, 8:23 am

We can barely discuss anything here without some chump trying to reduce it to "omg you all hate Bush THAT's why you're talking about European taxes*"

* or wtf ever.

Still I don't see why he's even bothering to try and pass the buck as, from the evidence here, the citizens of the US are happy with the job that's been done and don't really care for the insignificant details. . .

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » July 12, 2003, 1:38 pm

The head guy at the CIA (can't think of his name off the top of my head) is taking responsibility for the speech.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 12, 2003, 1:57 pm

I believe his name is George Tenet.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 13, 2003, 5:17 pm

Still I don't see why he's even bothering to try and pass the buck as, from the evidence here, the citizens of the US are happy with the job that's been done and don't really care for the insignificant details. . .

That is the scary part though.. a lie about a blow job brings down disaster, but a lie about a reason for a war is ignored..

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 13, 2003, 7:06 pm

I dont understand what the big deal is. Britain is saying they based their assesment on more than that one forged document- they are standing by the claim of Iraq trying to import Uranium from Africa even to this day.

http://www.charleston.net/stories/07130 ... rits.shtml

Prime Minister Tony Blair's office insisted he still believes the disputed charge that Iraq sought uranium in Africa was true, saying Britain has reliable information it cannot share with Washington because it comes from foreign intelligence sources.

By all accounts therefore, Bush's statement was completely accurate. Still, Tenet is taking full responsibility for allowing the CIA to approve a Presidential speech that should only have had rock hard evidence in it.

This has about as much relevance/impact as Wolfowitz's comment on Iraq "swimming in a sea of oil." It doesn't surprise me at all though that the same desperate people who took that quote completely out of context are jumping on this as well.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » July 13, 2003, 8:22 pm

I'm surprised Tenet still is director. He tried to fall on his sword, and the administration took the sword out from under him. In a way, that will make the issue linger longer than it would have if this had come out from the White House... "We regretfully accept Tenet's resignation as director of the CIA. We appreciate his hard work... blah blah blah"

In my opinion this move will cost him more than the speech mistake. (And I sure hope so...)

Animale

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 14, 2003, 7:32 am

Personally I highly doubt the blame can be put on CIA, but I guess it is better to use them as scapegoat than Bush. And of course Blair claims there were more documents! He is about to lose his power! Duh?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 14, 2003, 7:35 am

I dont understand what the big deal is. Britain is saying they based their assesment on more than that one forged document- they are standing by the claim of Iraq trying to import Uranium from Africa even to this day.

http://www.charleston.net/stories/07130 ... rits.shtml

Quote:
Prime Minister Tony Blair's office insisted he still believes the disputed charge that Iraq sought uranium in Africa was true, saying Britain has reliable information it cannot share with Washington because it comes from foreign intelligence sources.

By all accounts therefore, Bush's statement was completely accurate. Still, Tenet is taking full responsibility for allowing the CIA to approve a Presidential speech that should only have had rock hard evidence in it.

Oh blah-de-fucking-blah. "OK so the proof was a forgery but we have other secret proof we can't show you". You're a fucking gift to these people you really are.
Heads a gonna fucking roll in my country over this. If not now then at the next ballot. NINE claims about WMD in Iraq and so far NOT A SINGLE ONE has been substantiated. But that's ok cos they have secret evidence!!
That shit might wash around your way. I guess we hold our governments to a higher standard over here.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » July 14, 2003, 5:12 pm

I didn't start this thread as a Bush Bashing campaign, but more against the way politics in general work in our country. I'm sick of scummy politicians doing whatever the can to maintain "plausable deniability" and just bullet dodging in general. George Tenet will get some respect for me for no other reason than standing up and taking responsibility. The people running for public office should be men/women of principles, people that will admit when they made a mistake and continue to carry on doing the best they can. The way things are now no one will ever admit they made a mistake or did anything wrong enless they are backed in to a corner and can't find someone else to pin it on.

As much as I liked Clinton, I've always felt he handled the Lewinsky scandal badly because he kept trying to side step and dodge the bullet. The question should never have been asked, I agree, but it was. He should have just taken a stand and admitted to it, or he should have said "Fuck off, it isn't any of your business."

Please don't let the Clinton thing turn this into a Clinton is God, Clinton is Satan thread. I only picked Clinton for my example to illustrate that I'm not just blaming Republicans.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2003, 6:31 pm

What an amazing role reversal.

8 years ago Clinton allows Loral to give China guidance systems for their long range rockets which carry satilites and the occasional nukes. The conservatives go crazy, the liberals play it down as nothing.

Today we have a total role reversal. The conservatives play it down as nothing and the liberals go crazy.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2003, 6:50 pm

other than the fact that the technology to China issue and the WMD and Iraq war are both controversial issues, there is absolutely zero relation between the two.

so i'm really not sure what your point is other than you think that Conservatives and Liberals are pretty much both sheep who will agree/disagree with whatever they are told to.

and that may be an accurate statement

Neost · Post by **Neost** » July 14, 2003, 6:58 pm

None of this will matter come election time.

All Bush has to do for another four years is whatever it takes to get the economy out of the toillet (although I'm hard-pressed to see all the gloom and doom that the press is putting out).

If the economy gets back to near the state it was in when he came into office, he'll be walking in tall cotton.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2003, 7:03 pm

My point is, if don't like a guy you're much more critical of him,

and vice versa.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 14, 2003, 7:23 pm

Sorry you'll have to run by me why selling technology to your largest trading partner is bad.

Yeah that was really played down. Clinton should have been impeached for selling stuff do the dirty commies. Hell they haven't even accepted jesus into their lives as their personal saviour!

Clinton made a lot of mistakes in office. He never lied to americans in order to start an illegal war with a sovereign country so he could benefit from it's wealth.

You're comparing selling technology to china and fibbing about getting his knob polished with falsifying government documents and lying in order to start a conflict that has cost 10's of thousands of lives and probably a trillion dollars when all is said and done.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 14, 2003, 7:45 pm

kyoukan wrote:Sorry you'll have to run by me why selling technology to your largest trading partner is bad.

By itself it's not, but selling weapon systems to the world's largest army, especially the army of a goverment with goals that are not necessarily aligned with ours could very legitimately raise a few eyebrows.

Clinton made a lot of mistakes in office. He never lied to americans in order to start an illegal war with a sovereign country so he could benefit from it's wealth.

Could you please offer some source for this repeated accusation? I've been reading as many legitimate sources of news as I can find, and I have yet to see anyone make this accusation save you. Additionally, it could be argued that the UN sanctions Iraq was in violation of alone justified the military action. It's not lost on me that the WoMD which don't appear to exist were the sell for the American and British people. I'm sure we'll find the hidden lair of Cobra the Enemy if we keep searching through the desert though!

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 15, 2003, 3:37 am

Tancred wrote:"OK so the proof was a forgery but we have other secret proof we can't show you". You're a fucking gift to these people you really are.

Actually, MI6 claims that they hadn't even SEEN the forgery until after it had been denounced by the IAEA.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030713 ... -3172r.htm

LONDON — The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow Britain's MI6 to give the United States "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, U.S. intelligence sources said yesterday.

Britain's Secret Intelligence Service had more than one "different and credible" piece of intelligence to show that Iraq was attempting to buy the ore, known as yellowcake, British officials insisted. But it was given to them by at least one and possibly two intelligence services and, under the rules governing cooperation, it could not be shared with anyone else without the originator's permission.

U.S. intelligence sources believe the most likely source of the MI6 intelligence was the French secret service, the DGSE. Niger is a former French colony, and its uranium mines are run by a French company that comes under the control of the French Atomic Energy Commission.

A factor in the refusal to hand over the information might have been concern that the U.S. administration's willingness to publicize intelligence would lead to sources being inadvertently disclosed.

U.S. sources also point out that the French government was vehemently opposed to the war with Iraq and suggest that it would have been instinctively against the idea of passing on the intelligence.

British sources yesterday dismissed suggestions of a dispute between MI6 and the CIA on the issue. But they acknowledged to being surprised that George J. Tenet, the CIA director, had apologized to President Bush for allowing him to cite the British government and its claim that Saddam had sought to acquire uranium from Africa in his State of the Union speech in January.

The apology follows the International Atomic Energy Agency's dismissal of documents given to it by the CIA, which purported to prove the link, as forgeries.

Those documents have been widely identified with September's British dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium ore from an unnamed country in Africa.

British officials acknowledged that the country was Niger, but insisted that the intelligence behind it was genuine and had nothing to do with the fake documents. It was convincing and they were sticking with it, the officials said.

They dismissed a report from a former U.S. diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them.

"He seems to have asked a few people if it was true, and when they said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our assessment."

The fake documents were not behind that assessment and were not seen by MI6 until after they were denounced by the IAEA. If MI6 had seen them earlier, it would have immediately advised the Americans that they were fakes, these officials said.

There had been a number of reports, in the United States in particular, suggesting that the fake documents — which came from another intelligence source — were passed on via MI6, the officials said. But this was not true.

"What they can't accuse MI6 of doing is passing anything on this to the CIA because it didn't have the fake documents and it was not allowed to pass on the intelligence it did have to anyone else."

And no, I didn't post that because of the possible French connection, so don't go "oh ok, it's France's fault as usual. Nice excuse."

This whole issue has been blown so out of proportion. For anyone not wearing blinders it's apparent what really happened. No amount of wishful thinking will change the facts, no matter how hard you try.

What I don't understand is this: If Bush and his administration were full of these deviant liars making up evidence as they go, why haven't we happily stumbled upon huge caches of WMDs? Do you have any idea how easy it would be for us to plant them? And yet we haven't, while the whole world has been criticizing us.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 15, 2003, 3:54 am

If you are wondering why the war was illegal Aranuil, it is simple, it was not sanctioned by the U.N.

Under the Charter of the United Nations, the following purpose is clearly enunciated:

…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

…to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

…to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

Under the Charter of the United Nations, force is only authorized if sanctioned by the UN Security Council, or under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations which affirms:

…the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security (Article 51)

The United States , after failing to obtain the sufficient number of votes on the UN Security Council , is claiming that the US had received support for the use of force under the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. In an early draft, many members of the UN Security Council rejected the expression “all necessary means” which would have included the use of force. In UNSC resolution 1441, there was a provision for “serious consequences” to be in place in the event that Iraq had been in material breach of the resolution. Colin Powell has claimed that “serious consequences” is UN code for the use of force. There was a clear understanding, even formally expressed by Russia, France and China, that “serious consequences” did not authorize the automatic use of force and that before any authorization of force would be sanctioned, a further UN Security Council resolution would be necessary.

In addition, under the Convention of the Law of Treaties, terms in international instruments must be interpreted in their ordinary language meaning; in no way in ordinary language would serious consequences, even in the context of the UN Security Council resolution, be equated automatically with the use of force. One serious consequence could have been to take the issue to the International Court of Justice to enable the judges to carefully assess the legitimacy of the documentation presented. As has been reported recently, not only has there been misrepresentation of documents from US British intelligence, but also there have been forged documents on the purchase of uranium.

The US has misused Article 51 before and redefined what constituted self defence under Article 51. Again, the interpretation of this Article and its applicability would be best assessed by the International Court of Justice.

Several specialists in International Law have requested the US to go to the International Court of Justice to seek an advisory opinion on the legality of the use of force in Iraq.

As usual, the US is willing to condemn others as rogue states defying the rule of international law, but the US fails to seek the advice from the International Court of Justice which is a specialized organ under the United Nations, and the US has over the years failed to accept both the jurisdiction and the decisions of the International Court of Justice,

Iraq should appear before the International Court of Justice and ask for an emergency decision to prevent the imminent war on Iraq, and if the US invades Iraq, the US should be compelled to appear before the International Court of Justice for engaging in an illegal war in violation of the rule of international law, and the Charter of the United Nations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joan Russow (PhD) Global Compliance Research Institute 1 250 598-0071 Copyright Joan Russow 2003. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .

Also something that is much easier to comprehend

United Nations Charter, Article 2 wrote:4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 15, 2003, 4:05 am

This whole issue has been blown so out of proportion. For anyone not wearing blinders it's apparent what really happened. No amount of wishful thinking will change the facts, no matter how hard you try.

Blown out of proportion? Why do you say that? You don't think this issue deserves the attention it is getting?

I assume you are not wearing blinders. Please, explain to me in detail, what happened? All I know is that documents were forged in order to convince the united nations that Iraq was attempting to buy illegal material. No other documents or evidence was presented on the matter of buying illegal uranium. So please please tell me what you know about the matter, because I too would like to possess your knowledge.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 15, 2003, 4:15 am

Xyun wrote:If you are wondering why the war was illegal Aranuil, it is simple, it was not sanctioned by the U.N.

No sir, I was actually trying to understand where the (paraphrase), 'Bush went to war with Iraq to bolster the business interests of his pals.' allegation came from.

But thanks anyway, that was good information regardless.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 15, 2003, 4:49 am

Xyun wrote:I assume you are not wearing blinders. Please, explain to me in detail, what happened? All I know is that documents were forged in order to convince the united nations that Iraq was attempting to buy illegal material. No other documents or evidence was presented on the matter of buying illegal uranium. So please please tell me what you know about the matter, because I too would like to possess your knowledge.

So this is whole thing is just a re hashing of the argument concerning forged documents that were given to the IAEA? Is this all you can do concerning all of the "US lies"? Or has Bush moved ahead of schedule in his sinister plot to eliminate free speech and cut short your holy quest for "the truth?"

Those documents weren't forged by the US. When asked if the US had anything to do with the forgery, Powell said "It came from other sources." And I've seen others, even those super secret anonymous officials who have so much credibility say the same, also there's the obvious logic that if the US had forged the document they would have looked a lot more convincing, so it's safe to call it a fact that the US didn't forge it. Who did? I've read speculation, but I don't know. If the CIA/Bush admin knew so clearly that it was a fake, would they have cited it multiple times and then willingly given it to the IAEA? Obviously there was a big failure somewhere along the line for this document to have even seen the light of day, but I don't see this big government conspiracy that you do. Sorry.

And I'll go ahead and connect the dots for you about this other conspiracy concerning what Bush said in the state of the union. Britain had intell the US didn't concerning Iraq looking to buy Uranium from Africa, therefore Bush in his speech refers to (paraphrased) "Britain learning that Saddam had sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa." It wasn't a "spin" to in someway throw a very shaky claim out there while being able to maintain political cover because of the exact wording- Britain really had learned things the US hadn't. Fast forward to now. Tenet takes full responsibility for allowing a claim that the US itself couldn't back up to enter into a speech that was as important as the State of The Union. End of discussion. Anyways, that train of logic is really easy to see if you've read this thread. Since you didn't refer directly to it I probably didn't have to write all that out, but maybe I'm saving myself the time for when three months from now the news reaches you in your underground bunker where you're safely protected from Ashcroft and his minions who are trying to take away all of your freedoms and you decide to come here and post about it like it's some kind of bombshell.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 15, 2003, 6:12 am

All I know is that documents were forged in order to convince the united nations that Iraq was attempting to buy illegal material

I don't think that they were forged specifically for this purpose

I'm sick of scummy politicians doing whatever the can to maintain "plausable deniability" and just bullet dodging in general

Stop electing lawyers and actors

It wasn't a "spin" to in someway throw a very shaky claim out there while being able to maintain political cover because of the exact wording- Britain really had learned things the US hadn't

It was, however, indicative of the haste shown to go to war: nothing was properly checked, lots was taken "on faith" (cf. all the "I trust my government they dont need to show me the evidence" posts) and it was all done in a damn hurry.

Obviously there was a big failure somewhere along the line for this document to have even seen the light of day, but I don't see this big government conspiracy that you do. Sorry

One failure, maybe two, I can write that off as an accident. But there are too many of these "failures" and they pertain to every reason given for the need for a war. I'm not one to blame conspiracy where stupidity is an acceptable alternative but what are the odds of fuckups on this scale?

When all the hard-nosed, common-sense, live-in-the-real-world conservatives come here and tell us to shut up and look at the humanitarian aspect of the Iraq situation you know something's up. I thought it was "teh liberalz" who had hearts and no brains? Where is your realpolitick now? Playing the sympathy card is a world away from protecting freedom, defending your homeland, safeguarding america's children and all that other BS you fed us in the run up to the war. Your tiger was a paper one, your reasons a pack of lies.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 15, 2003, 9:26 am

If Bush and his administration were full of these deviant liars making up evidence as they go, why haven't we happily stumbled upon huge caches of WMDs? Do you have any idea how easy it would be for us to plant them? And yet we haven't, while the whole world has been criticizing us.

Because you waited too long, now (or lately) nobody but easily fooled Americans would believe they were anything but planted.

Also, right after the semis were found Bush went on Polish television and said straight out that WMDs had been found. Now that is a lie

Been commented on in several editorials here in the largest Norwegian newspapers.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 15, 2003, 9:27 am

Brotha wrote:Those documents weren't forged by the US. When asked if the US had anything to do with the forgery, Powell said "It came from other sources." And I've seen others, even those super secret anonymous officials who have so much credibility say the same,

Yes, and I too believe anything that comes out of any officials or politicians mouth.

I don't think Colin Powell would knowingly lie to the U.N., but I do think that he was just the string puppet used as the pitcher.

also there's the obvious logic that if the US had forged the document they would have looked a lot more convincing, so it's safe to call it a fact that the US didn't forge it.

It is not at all safe to call it a fact dumb shit. What task do you think is more difficult-- identifying a forged document or forging a document? Identifying one is a hundred times easier than successfully forging one. Your logic is since the US is so badass at forging a document, it would have automatically been successful, and thus, this document was not forged by the US. Then you go on to say that the US lacks the ability to identify a forged document..... your stupidity is pathetic yet humorous. I'm not alledging that the documents were forged by the US at all. What I am saying is that your logic is bass ackwards and you are a brainless twit.

Who did? I've read speculation, but I don't know. If the CIA/Bush admin knew so clearly that it was a fake, would they have cited it multiple times and then willingly given it to the IAEA? Obviously there was a big failure somewhere along the line for this document to have even seen the light of day, but I don't see this big government conspiracy that you do.

Ok this is the fucking CIA we are talking about here. You mean to tell me when it comes to intelligence, the IAEA is more proficient in identifying forged documents for a goddamn nuclear program than the CIA? You gotta be fucking kidding. The CIA is the elite intelligence agency in the fucking world.

Do you know about Occam's razor? Here I have before me 2 options:

1) The CIA failed to identify a forged document.

2) The CIA realized the document was forged.

I choose #2 and all the implications that come with it.

Fast forward to now. Tenet takes full responsibility for allowing a claim that the US itself couldn't back up to enter into a speech that was as important as the State of The Union. End of discussion.

This is my favorite part of your post. The president of the United States includes a very questionable phrase in the most important speech of the year, and then blames it on a lackey... end of discussion. hahahahahahhahhaha.

Ok if I'm ever president (don't worry, I can't be, wasn't born here) I'm going to make goddamn sure that if I say something in my most important speech it is absolutely fucking true. Again what is more plausible?

1. Lil Georgy doesn't have the mental capacity to identify questionable phrases in his own speeches.

2. Lil Georgy knew the phrase may or may not be true and decided to include it anyway.

Jesus fucking christ that is a tough tough dilemma. I'm not sure which one is more plausible. If I go with #2 which is my inclination, that would mean that #1 is not true and that is not possible. I'm gonna sleep on that one.

George Bush: dumb or evil?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 15, 2003, 10:25 am

He was trying to muster up as many excuses to go to war with Iraq as he could, someone gives him something that might be true hel go for it, hope for a success and even if its not true he will have other things to back it up with,
shit, you could tell they were desperate as hell when you saw Colin Powell at that UN meeting, he didnt have jack shit for evedence, just what MIGHT be true...but yeah, shit like this in washington goes down ALL the fucking time, with all presedents partys etc,(except a libertarian presedent would be badass and never do that) we just found out about 1

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 15, 2003, 12:37 pm

Kelshara wrote:That is the scary part though.. a lie about a blow job brings down disaster, but a lie about a reason for a war is ignored..

You can't be this devastatingly ignorant. The blow job would not have brought about any repurcussions of any significance. It was the fact that the President of the United States committed PERJURY on the witness stand in a federal court. He committed a felony. That is a big fucking deal.

If George Bush is brought up into a court room and he lies on the stand, then I would fully expect him to be impeached as well.

vn_Tanc wrote:Stop electing lawyers and actors

I would go you one further than this and say stop electing politicians. If only there was a way to wipe the slate entirely clean and start from scratch it would be so refreshing.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 15, 2003, 12:46 pm

a shitload of presedents were lawyers, hell i wouldnt be surprised if at one point or another before they became senators etc, more then 50% of the presedents have had a degree in law, passed the bar etc
only actor was reagen, or were there more?

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » July 15, 2003, 12:57 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/u ... _docs.html

Here's the highlights if you don't want to read the whole thing:

However, the intelligence debacle grew out of a scam when an underpaid African diplomat who was stationed in Rome created bogus documents, which he then sold to the Italian secret service, sources said.

The Italians officially deny the sale, but intelligence sources told ABCNEWS the fake documents were produced in late 2001 in Rome, in a building that houses the tiny embassy of Niger.

The diplomat, who now has been recalled to Niger, sold the forged documents to the military branch of the Italian secret service for what sources say was a few thousand dollars.

/boggle

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 15, 2003, 2:12 pm

Not to really change the subject to Clinton but...

The President should have never been QUESTIONED on whether or not he got a blow in the oval office. THAT was the mistake, Clinton followed it with another mistake of his own by purgering himself in court. IMHO the American public should have stood up to those right-wing freaks lead by JR Star and told them enough is enough, crawl back in your hole.

In regards to this subject though I will note that I was one of the Liberals calling for war all along for humantarian issue. As I posted to another thread recently, the UN's evaluation is what should have called for War back in 1999. IMHO the stuff above about the UN is useless. They issued warnings and threats, the US just followed through when they misplaced their spine.

Marb

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 15, 2003, 5:04 pm

Aranuil wrote:Could you please offer some source for this repeated accusation? I've been reading as many legitimate sources of news as I can find, and I have yet to see anyone make this accusation save you.

of course you haven't; because it isn't news. news is a hard fact (except for fox news), this is opinion based on speculation of the caliber of person your president and his cronies are, as well as their ties to big oil and the fact that nothing but shady business has been going on regarding Iraq's oil since they were conquered by their new masters.

I don't need a source when I'm stating the obvious. so far the bush administration has come up with 3 different excuses to invade Iraq, making up a new one when the last excuse failed to convince anyone but the bloodthirsty righties in your country. so far he has completely failed to legitimize his invasion in the eyes of the world. there's chaos in baghdad because most of the military is hanging out at the oil fields. there still isn't enough electricity and water to supply all of baghdad, but the fucking oil is pumping. during the looting, museums and hospitals were totally gutted when the only building that was protected was the state's oil ministry. it could not be more transparent if bush put on a cowboy hat and screamed "YEEHAW DADDY WE DONE STRUCK US SOME BLACK GOLD!"

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 15, 2003, 5:26 pm

kyoukan wrote:I don't need a source when I'm stating the obvious.

English translation: I'm lying out my ass.

kyoukan wrote:there still isn't enough electricity and water to supply all of baghdad, but the fucking oil is pumping. during the looting, museums and hospitals were totally gutted when the only building that was protected was the state's oil ministry. it could not be more transparent if bush put on a cowboy hat and screamed "YEEHAW DADDY WE DONE STRUCK US SOME BLACK GOLD!"

So how would you restore electricity without fuel? Magic?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » July 15, 2003, 5:28 pm

kyoukan wrote:I don't need a source when I'm stating the obvious.

You are funny Kooky.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 15, 2003, 5:28 pm

I do not know. If Bush went to war to protect the U.S., and concievably the world from a huge attack using WoMD, I can understand the attack on Iraq.
However, I have to agree with Kyou on this. I have serious doubts as to the reason Bush invaded Iraq being something that was needed. Sadly, most of the western world views the middle east as filled with sycophants and jyhad starters, which is an ignorant assumtion.
In my opinion, Saddam, even if he achieved nuclear weaponry, would not employ them in the conventional sense. He would use them to gain recognition and perhaps some legitimacy in the world scene, perhaps, or as a safe guard against what we did. However, I think that is what worried our elected officals the most, that he might gain the power to say "no" and make it stick.

Anyway, I am rambling.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » July 15, 2003, 5:52 pm

masteen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:I don't need a source when I'm stating the obvious.
English translation: I'm lying out my ass.

kyoukan wrote:there still isn't enough electricity and water to supply all of baghdad, but the fucking oil is pumping. during the looting, museums and hospitals were totally gutted when the only building that was protected was the state's oil ministry. it could not be more transparent if bush put on a cowboy hat and screamed "YEEHAW DADDY WE DONE STRUCK US SOME BLACK GOLD!"
So how would you restore electricity without fuel? Magic?

It's pretty obvious to me. It's about oil. Just think about it, look into the Bush family history, and there connections, and the world energy supply, the middle east, & how the USA fits into it. It makes perfect sense. Even though very little of US oil comes from the middle east, the price per barrel is greatly effected by what happens with OPEC.

Are you really buying the WoMD story for invading based on Bush's word, and no hard evidence? Jesus H. Christ, you really trust the US government that much?
As far as your comment on restoring electricity, I think kyou's point was more on our priorities, and not the means to get there. Irag HAS fuel stores for electricy, it's not like they only produce it on demand.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 16, 2003, 12:06 am

hey, keep in mind bush has "darn good intellegence" how the fuck can you argue with "darn good intellegence"!?

noel · Post by **noel** » July 16, 2003, 12:44 am

kyoukan wrote:
Aranuil wrote:Could you please offer some source for this repeated accusation? I've been reading as many legitimate sources of news as I can find, and I have yet to see anyone make this accusation save you.
of course you haven't; because it isn't news. news is a hard fact (except for fox news), this is opinion based on speculation of the caliber of person your president and his cronies are, as well as their ties to big oil and the fact that nothing but shady business has been going on regarding Iraq's oil since they were conquered by their new masters.

I don't need a source when I'm stating the obvious. so far the bush administration has come up with 3 different excuses to invade Iraq, making up a new one when the last excuse failed to convince anyone but the bloodthirsty righties in your country. so far he has completely failed to legitimize his invasion in the eyes of the world. there's chaos in baghdad because most of the military is hanging out at the oil fields. there still isn't enough electricity and water to supply all of baghdad, but the fucking oil is pumping. during the looting, museums and hospitals were totally gutted when the only building that was protected was the state's oil ministry. it could not be more transparent if bush put on a cowboy hat and screamed "YEEHAW DADDY WE DONE STRUCK US SOME BLACK GOLD!"

Ok just checking. No credible evidence. Nice wording though. Very colorful.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 16, 2003, 1:00 am

Kyo, needs a hug.

It's good medicine, releases tension.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » July 16, 2003, 1:04 am

...so far he has completely failed to legitimize his invasion in the eyes of the world...

To me that is the key issue, as a non-American. Why did this happen?

Saddam Hussein is a sadistic fuck, nasty person and diabolically evil. I won't refute those claims. Very few people will.

Yet this was supposed to be an action to rid the world of a rogue power, hoarding WOMD? Where are they now? There are possibilities of nerve gas fabrication from some compounds, but those same compounds could also be as innocuous as fertilizer.

This was supposed to be an action to free Iraq from a hated despot and let the people experience freedom and choose their own government. Where is the timetable for Iraqi self-government and when will elections be held? These take time to organize and implement, but in the 2months+ since the "hostilities ended", this should have been a top priority and (from a propaganda stand point) front and center with the media. Instead there is talk of a prolonged occupation, and a US administrator.

So really what has changed for the Iraqis except that a more "benevolent" dictatorship has replaced the Baath party? And I expect a US administrator to do what is best for American interests, not necessarily for Iraqi interests, and definately American interests would take precedence should those interests oppose each other. Thats human nature.

And although I dont buy into a lot of the oil-fueled conspiracy theories, no one can deny that the sanctions have lifted and Iraq's oil production infrastructure is being repaired and is seemingly a top priority.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 16, 2003, 3:35 am

Aranuil wrote:Ok just checking. No credible evidence. Nice wording though. Very colorful.

My evidence is a hell of a lot more credible than the shady "intelligence documents were not going to show anyone" that your president put out.

At least my evidence is grounded in logic and reasoning, and I don't have UN weapons inspectors with 40 years of experience telling me I am wrong. At least nobody has proven my speculations wrong yet, which is more than you can say for your president and his oil soaked rednecks that control him.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 16, 2003, 4:04 am

kyoukan wrote:
Aranuil wrote:Ok just checking. No credible evidence. Nice wording though. Very colorful.
My evidence is a hell of a lot more credible than the shady "intelligence documents were not going to show anyone" that your president put out.

At least my evidence is grounded in logic and reasoning, and I don't have UN weapons inspectors with 40 years of experience telling me I am wrong. At least nobody has proven my speculations wrong yet, which is more than you can say for your president and his oil soaked rednecks that control him.

The day you're privy to daily National Security Council briefings, I'll take anything you say regarding secret documents and what their content may or may not be seriously. Here in the US, we're quite used to 'need to know' information. It doesn't mean we like it, and it certainly doesn't mean we agree with it, but it's something that goes on. I have yet to say you're wrong, but not having evidence, no matter how logical you feel you're being is not the same as having evidence.

Given that there are people who's entire jobs are to dig up shit and uncover scandals such as the one your alledging, I'd think we would have heard something about this by now.

You're the one making the accusation, the burden of proof is on you. No one is required to disprove your speculations until you can show something other than, 'Bush has oil friends so that must be the reason for the war in Iraq.'

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 16, 2003, 5:49 am

Here in the US, we're quite used to 'need to know' information.

Well we need to know. It is way beyond time to keep "hard evidence" secret, and the fact that people are not crying out more for facts astounds me.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 16, 2003, 7:06 am

I don't need to know, but the UN security council and any other country that is asked to participate in a military invasion sure as fuck does. Or is it none of their business either?

Is the entire world just supposed to buy up your president's magical intelligence documents as easily as they were sold to you?

He said he had intel that Iraq had WMD, but they don't exist. Then he said that Iraq needed to be invaded pre-emptively before they start another war, and nobody bought that. Then he made up this line of bullshit at the 11th hour that they are freeing the Iraq people from a dangerous oppressor and invades on that. The first thing they do after liberating the people from oppression is to oppress them, then they start pumping and selling their oil and keeping the money in order to "rebuild Iraq" which was fucking blown up by them in the first fucking place. Who gets to the oil money to rebuild Iraq? COULD IT BE MORE HUGE AMERICAN CORPORATIONS WITH TIES TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?

Yeah I don't have any hard evidence, sorry. I also don't have any hard evidence that Saddam Hussein is evil. Fucking shoot me. All I have is the evidence presented to me and I use my brain to piece it all together and form this thing that we non-americans call an opinion.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 16, 2003, 7:25 am

I'm not disagreeing with the facts you've laid out, I'm simply stating that there is currently no evidence to support your conclusion.

I can form an opinion just fine, but it's far easier to do when I have some concrete evidence to base it on. If I wanted fluff and bullshit, I'd channel Rush Limbaugh like some of the other posters we have here.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 16, 2003, 8:55 am

First of all, other countries were responsible for giving us fake information as well as our own people. If you want to lay blame for false info, spread it around to all the parties. You can also curse Spain and all the other countries for blindly following info they never saw either.

Second, if I was trying to rebuild a country so they could operate independently, the first thing I would "fix" is what will make them money. There are a hell of a lot of engineer units over there risking their lives to rebuild electrical plants, water facilities, oil pumping stations, refineries, etc. Just because the news sources never show a shot of someone working on electric power stations doesn't mean they are all over there sucking oil through the ground with garden hoses to bilk the Iraqis out of oil. Rebuilding takes a while....especially when you are dealing with government employees. Give them some time.

Third, you don't just establish a government in 2 months and expect it to work. I don't think that they had a clue about what they were going to do to institute a ruling body and didn't think that this war would end so quickly.

Fourth, GWB could have just gone on TV to say that he was going over to finish what we started 10 years ago and most of the U.S. people would have been fine with that. No way does he get up there in front of the world and tell them they have WMD if someone had not presented something with pretty good info. He knows that if he comes up empty that the shit will hit the fan. No way does he have his people make that up....it is political suicide. He did not end up as President by making stupid moves in a political forum.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 16, 2003, 10:48 am

It took the USA 6 years to hammer out a good system of government after we broke loose from England.

Establishing a representative goverment in a country that knows only dictatorships will take a while.

Just Monday they made a step towards this goal by creating a council of Iraqi leaders that represented all the major factions in Iraq.

This process is like pushing a freight train. It takes a bit for it to get rolling.