The Iraq thread 3

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Who else thinks that the CIA is going to end up taking it in the rear again?

Is going to? Try already has. Just the other day that oh-so-telling statement came out of the White House, stating that Tenet still retains the President's "full confidence". Although at some point it's going to start coming back around on Dubya- why on Earth would he still have confidence in a guy who has ostensibly failed him and the country so badly, so many times? What I'd give to have the inside story on this one.

Quote[/b] ]Whats the bible belt (area) in the US btw tex? i heard that reference from one of them yanks there saying that he comes from the area known as that and the people there generally love Bush

The Bible Belt is generally understood to encompass all of the Southern states, as far west as Texas, and as far north as Kansas and Virginia. Basically it's used to describe the areas in which evangelical Protestant sects (Southern Baptist, CoC, etc) are the most prevalent.

[walker 0]

@ Feb. 02 2004,02:09)]The Bible Belt is generally understood to encompass all of the Southern states, as far west as Texas, and as far north as Kansas and Virginia. Basically it's used to describe the areas in which evangelical Protestant sects (Southern Baptist, CoC, etc) are the most prevalent. Walkers underline and bold

Lol Tex

Hee Hee Hah haa    

Kind Regards Walker

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Feb. 02 2004,02:09)]The Bible Belt is generally understood to encompass all of the Southern states, as far west as Texas, and as far north as Kansas and Virginia. Basically it's used to describe the areas in which evangelical Protestant sects (Southern Baptist, CoC, etc) are the most prevalent.

Lol Tex

Hee Hee Hah haa    

Kind Regards Walker

heh, not that CoC, the other one- Church of Christ. But from what I've heard, Chain of Command does borrow certain methods from the Hare Krishnas

[denoir 0]

@ Feb. 02 2004,02:09)]

Who else thinks that the CIA is going to end up taking it in the rear again?

Is going to? Try already has. Just the other day that oh-so-telling statement came out of the White House, stating that Tenet still retains the President's "full confidence". Although at some point it's going to start coming back around on Dubya- why on Earth would he still have confidence in a guy who has ostensibly failed him and the country so badly, so many times? What I'd give to have the inside story on this one.

Really, I missed that one. LOL, that's the third time now.

But what choice does he have really? He can't very well get a new one as that one will see that loyalty doesn't pay off. If he fires Tenet there will be a very short supply of willing whipping boys ready to take one for the team. A new director would know that he inevitably would be blamed for everything and ultimately fired, so the best thing to do for him would be to blame it all on Bush and get ready to be friendly with the next president. So as I see it, the safe thing for Bush is to keep Tenet around - but as you said, eyebrows would be raised.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Feb. 02 2004,02:09)]

Who else thinks that the CIA is going to end up taking it in the rear again?

Is going to? Try already has. Just the other day that oh-so-telling statement came out of the White House, stating that Tenet still retains the President's "full confidence". Although at some point it's going to start coming back around on Dubya- why on Earth would he still have confidence in a guy who has ostensibly failed him and the country so badly, so many times? What I'd give to have the inside story on this one.

Really, I missed that one. LOL, that's the third time now.

But what choice does he have really? He can't very well get a new one as that one will see that loyalty doesn't pay off. If he fires Tenet there will be a very short supply of willing whipping boys ready to take one for the team. A new director would know that he inevitably would be blamed for everything and ultimately fired, so the best thing to do for him would be to blame it all on Bush and get ready to be friendly with the next president. So as I see it, the safe thing for Bush is to keep Tenet around - but as you said, eyebrows would be raised.

I nearly missed it too- apparently they're trying to keep it under the radar. I would've missed it entirely, but I happened to be watching the Capital Gang on CNN the other day and one of the pundits mentioned it in passing. I sure as hell don't hear about it on Fox News

[denoir 0]

Hehee, from FOX News

Quote[/b] ]By setting up the investigation himself, Bush will have greater control over its membership and mandate. The senior White House official said it would be patterned after the Warren Commission, so named for its chairman Earl Warren, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, which led a 10-month investigation that concluded in 1964 that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President John F. Kennedy.

Nice shot!... into their own foot. Not very bright IMO to draw those parallels as JFK assasination and the subsequent investigation is a poster child for conspiracy theories.  

..or perhaps that's why they chose it as a role model  

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think now would be an opertune time to remind people that TBA was not listening to its Intel neither CIA or Pentagon

There has been no failure of intelligence that is a myth put out by TBA and TBA2 to blame someone else for the war on Iraq and the failure to find Bin Laden.

TBA has not been listening to intelligence for over two years they have been listening to The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service.

The CIA, Pentagon and other professional intelligence analysts have not been able to speak to the US President for all that time. Instead they have to go and speak through a filter; in meetings with The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service who often don't want to hear their reports as they dont jell with what TBA wants to hear.

You all need to read this article 3 pages in a US Republican magazine.

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski recently retired from the U.S. Air Force. Her final posting was as an analyst at the Pentagon. Hence I believe it to be the most honnest and verifiable of sources.

I would remind all of you that both UK and US intelligence communities are seriously hacked off at their respective political masters and are likely to start leaking like sieves if TBA and TBA2 continue to look like using them as a scape goat. The UK intelligence community has allready fired a shot across TBAs bows.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-528574,00.html

Filtering your intelligence, so it only gives you the info you want it to, clearly places the blame for any failure in intelligence assesment with the people who set up the system; TBA and TBA2, not those forced to work under it. Rumour has it that Tennet is as castrated as Scarlett though.

Using the intelligence communities who regularly risk their lives to get info on the dangers in our world as a scapegoat is a truly sickening trick by TBA and TBA2. The buck stops at the top it and it always has.

Still Sickened walker

[bn880 5]

Bush and Blair are nominated for the Nobel Peace prize and all you people can do is bash these peace makers?

EDIT: I have to confess one thing is starting to get on my nerves again with the reporting in the States... most interviews you can see on CNN et al say stuff like "we now have to find out why everyone (Intel agencies) thought there were WMDs". When really it was just the UK and US intel that sort of thought this. (upto debate)

[walker 0]

Bush and Blair are nominated for the Nobel Peace prize and all you people can do is bash these peace makers?    

Not a funny Joke

Walker

[bn880 5]

Hey, tis true

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2478753

[*]Check One idiot in Norway

[walker 0]

EDIT: I have to confess one thing is starting to get on my nerves again with the reporting in the States... most interviews you can see on CNN et al say stuff like "we now have to find out why everyone (Intel agencies) thought there were WMDs".  When really it was just the UK and US intel that sort of thought this. (upto debate)

Hi Bn880

Why do people keep insisting on saying it was an intelligence community failure when I have placed evidence before them that it was not?

Please read the three pages of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski's article: http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hey, tis true

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2478753

[*]Check One idiot in Norway

NO NO NO!

It can not be it's February 1st not April 1st!

    walker

[bn880 5]

Why do people keep insisting on saying it was an intelligence community failure when I have placed evidence before them that it was not?

I do not say it was, I do consider it a personal failure on many members of the Intelligence community who sexed up Intel, and did not write clear paragraphs/summaries stating there was no imminent threat etc. However any sane person who would read some of these documents could conclude there was no threat according to them. It was deliberate extraction of catch phrases, and this is what the whitehouse and your parliament are guilty of.

IMO, TBA,TBA2 and both countries Intel agencies should be imprisonned, but I am just hardcore like that when people get shot up to bits.

[denoir 0]

Hey, tis true

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2478753

[*]Check One idiot in Norway

         

         

         

           

Quote[/b] ]Bush and Blair are thus known to be on the list, having been proposed by Jan Simonsen, a member of the Norwegian parliament.

Formerly of the far-right Progressive Party but now an independent, Simonsen said that the duo ought to be honoured "for having dared to take the necessary decision to launch a war on Iraq without having the support of the UN."

Indeed, check one idiot in Norway.

[MSpencer 0]

I'm totally agreeing with bn on this one, the CIA is virtually to blame for every problem that's ever emerged involving the US bombing a small country into submission, and the White House speech writers interpret it as truth.

Grenada wasn't totally Reagan's choice.

Panama, meh.

Iraq2 was all CIA taking some little allegations and turning them into "Saddam is going to nuke Israel, and then the US". They essentially turned Saddam into an image of pure evil, not that he WASN'T, but they just wanted to put him on the high part of the "Who to Bomb Now to get More US Soldiers Killed" list.

Let me say this, would you be willing to give your life in Iraq for a false cause, especially when all you're doing is liberating people who will suffer more in the long run?

Yes, I'm talking Civil War here. Why not?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Hey, tis true

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2478753

[*]Check One idiot in Norway

this is what happens when years of Swedish oppression has left Norweigians angry about Swedes, and want to get back at them by going against Sweden's common consensus. Of course having an evil invader next door isn't heling much either.

back on CIA thingy.

i won't be surprised if what happened here is that CIA was indirectly asked to provide infos/evals that were more aligned with TBA's thinking. i.e. if they were to provide information on nuclear capability of iraq, it would have been more suitable for TBA to recieve estimates that would indicate that there are great chances of it rather than conservative estimate of not having it.

last time when this happened seems to be that beautiful Nigerian Uranium claim was apparent. the info was part of intel that was debriefed, but was not sought to be credible by them either. however, it ended up on the State of Union address, and later CIA took blame for not checking the info on the adress thoroughly. if that info was deemed not reliable it should not have been on the address to begin with. but CIA had to take the blame, and now it happens again.

[walker 0]

Hi RalphWiggum, MSpencer et al

Please read  the three pages of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski's article:

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

It makes clear the process in the Whitehouse where by TBA arranged for The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service to Doctor intelligence before it reached the presidents ear.

It makes clear that TBA arranged to recieve the intelligence it wanted to hear not real intelligence.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

(Washington Post)

Quote[/b] ]

For Bush, a Tactical Retreat on Iraq

By Dana Milbank

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, February 2, 2004; Page A01

In deciding to back an independent review of the intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush is implicitly conceding what he cannot publicly say: that something appears to be seriously wrong with the allegations he used to take the nation to war in Iraq.

Most everybody in a position to know has agreed that a huge mistake has been made.

"We were almost all wrong," David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, testified last week.

"In this case, there's no question that there was an intelligence failure, in some form or another," Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said yesterday on "Fox News Sunday." "Clearly this is not the immediate threat many assumed before the war," is how Charles Duelfer, Kay's replacement, put it a few months ago when he noted "the apparent absence of existing weapons stocks."

Bush will announce this week that he is creating, by executive order, a bipartisan independent panel of at least nine members that will make a report in 2005, the White House confirmed yesterday. But those close to the president say he is doing so while continuing to avoid any explicit public acknowledgment that the intelligence was wrong. Why the reluctance to state what appears increasingly obvious as Kay spent the past 10 days dashing prospects that significant weapons stockpiles would be found in Iraq? Although the tactic may appear to be obtuse, there is a real strategy behind the Bush response -- and one that has been used before, to great effect.

Bush aides have learned through hard experience that admitting error only projects weakness and invites more abuse. Conversely, by postponing an acknowledgment -- possibly beyond Election Day -- the White House is generating a fog of uncertainty around Kay's stark findings, and potentially softening a harsh public judgment.

"They aren't giving up," Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, said recently. Blix's failure to find weapons of mass destruction before the war was ridiculed by the administration. "They all prefer to retreat under a mist of controversy rather than say, 'I'm sorry, this was wrong,' " he said.

Of course, Bush and his top aides are as aware as anyone -- and acknowledge as much in private -- that Kay's remarks of the last week have dispelled remaining hope that the intelligence might prove correct. Although some in the White House favor having Bush admit publicly that the intelligence was flawed, a high-ranking Republican source said such a step is not yet being contemplated.

Instead, for the White House, agreeing to allow an external review -- which Kay advocates -- amounts to a tacit acknowledgement of reality without an admission of error that would encourage opponents. Indeed, having a commission could postpone Bush's need to admit error indefinitely; in that sense, it is something of a tactical retreat.

Nobody expects any hard conclusions to be reached before the Nov. 2 election -- either by congressional probes or an independent inquiry -- on what went wrong with the intelligence. Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House intelligence committee and a former CIA case officer, said recently that partisan politics would make it impossible to get any real work done before the election. "Not this year," Goss said. "You couldn't get the members together, or even the rules set up."

Bush has lately found many of his rationales for the war in Iraq being challenged. Just as Kay has undermined the WMD rationale, a report published by the Army War College challenged the notion that the war in Iraq was part of the overall war on terrorism, while the group Human Rights Watch has disputed Bush's notion that the Iraq war was a humanitarian mission. Vice President Cheney has implicitly acknowledged that the Iraq war has not spurred peace in the Middle East, saying peace is not possible while Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat remains in power.

To all of these challenges, though, there is a simple solution for Bush: If the on-the-ground situation improves in Iraq, with violence abating and U.S. troops returning home, the American public will almost certainly forgive any flaws in the rationale for going to war. Discussing the weapons dilemma, Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who backs the president on Iraq, sees it this way: "If people feel things are under control in Iraq, the WMD issue doesn't have traction. If things go badly, then it does have traction."

Also, the alternative for Bush -- admitting an error in the prewar allegations -- has not worked well for him in the past. Administration officials now say it was a mistake to acknowledge that Bush should not have included in last year's State of the Union address an allegation that Iraq tried to buy nuclear material in Africa. The admission of error, they say, made Bush appear weak and encouraged more skeptical coverage than if the White House had refused to budge.

Before deciding to endorse an independent review, White House officials had little alternative but to rely on some unsatisfying answers when asked about the intelligence failure. On Wednesday, for example, Bush suggested that war came because Saddam Hussein did not let inspectors into Iraq, when in fact it was the United States that called for inspections to end. "It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in," Bush said.

That same day, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan said the White House never said Iraq was an "imminent" threat. But when McClellan's predecessor, Ari Fleischer, was asked whether Iraq was an imminent threat, he replied: "Absolutely." And when White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked whether Hussein was an imminent threat to U.S. interests, he replied: "Well, of course he is."

In addition, Bush aides have regularly said that they were following the advice of intelligence experts. On Thursday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the weapons conclusion "was the judgment of our intelligence community, the judgment of intelligence communities around the world." Yet the White House, at various times, went beyond what the CIA advised. In addition to the allegation about Hussein's nuclear purchases in Africa, which the CIA discouraged, the White House asserted, without consulting with the CIA, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

In all their efforts last week to blunt the issue, though, White House officials have been careful not to say the intelligence was wrong. Invited to do so in a television interview Thursday with CBS News, Rice replied: "I don't think . . . that we know the full story of what became of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." Those close to the White House said that, now that Bush has backed an independent review, there is no need for an immediate revision of that official position.

I think it's amazing how they continue to lie. I mean, how stupid do they think people are? There are records of all what they did and all that they said.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I thought a drawing might aid some people to understand the intelligence chain to The White House as changed by TBA to include The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service

Kind Regards Walker

[MSpencer 0]

Well we all know that the US Government never was the cleanest. If you have 100 million dollars, you can do anything in America these days. It's really quite scary how powerhungry some people are here, and you can be guaranteed this ties in to something that has to do with George Tenet thinking he can pull on the US Government's strings.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]and you can be guaranteed this ties in to something that has to do with George Tenet thinking he can pull on the US Government's strings.

You don´t get it, eh ?

Tenet is the one who gets blamed now but in fact the intelligance was made up by others, not the CIA. The CIA in fact warned Bush to use info on WMD´s, the nigeria WMD plot that had never happened. They had their hands tied and had to watch the TBA making up their own intel.

The CIA is the last to blame in this case. It´s the TBA and G.W Bush, especially Cheney and Rumsfeld.

To make up a conspiracy issue with Tenet included or even better run by Tenet is bullshit. That´s the greates stupidity release I have heard of lately....

[walker 0]

Hi all

The question is:

Why was The Office of Special Plans, Rumsfeld's Amateur Private Secret Service set up to filter US intelligence in the first place?

It is the Key to why there are now 624 coalition and tens of thousands of inocent Iraqis are dead, and why that death toll continues to rise.

We owe it to those dead, the thousands of wounded, and their families, to get to the bottom of this.

Angry walker

[bn880 5]

Don't forget the grunts on the ground who do want to get out of there and are asking "why are we here"... there are a lot like this.

Anyway, I would not defend the CIA, but obviously central blame is on TBA. Good news is 75% of citizens in Poland now appear to think going to Iraq was wrong. Bit late though if you ask me, Poland tarnished a very nice political record, and now has undoubtedly lost enormously due to bad relations with German, France et. al. And I agree fully they should not get an equal voice in EU constitution as France, Germany Italy and others, since they have shown to have stupid ideas.

[MSpencer 0]

This war was not needed. I am ashamed to have supported it, and I wish that it had never come to the occupation, and loss of life of our troops. The military is there to serve the government, and the government is supposed to serve the military, it is, by nature, a flawed relationship. If you can spot one politician who gives a damn about the lives of their military, I'd like to know.

So many lives have been lost, and not in the name of country, honor, or human life, in the name of a fat politician sitting on his throne in Washington. Yes, we freed the Iraqis, but as someone who plans to enter military service, I would not willingly go to Iraq to fight for my country unless they proved to be something of a threat. I am ashamed of my government, and that is something nobody should have to say.

We owe this to the families of the people who died in Iraq.

For all the families of the deceased from the Marines, Army, Air Force, and Navy, and countless other countries, we owe this to them. I will not give up until this mystery is unearthed, but what can I do? Not much, but we're all gonna need to work together on this. No, this isn't some crazy plan to blow up Washington DC, there are some nice people there.

[Leveler 0]

binladen attacked the US because of bases in saudi arabia...ok yea right

You know what the most sad part is? Thosuands of your citizens have died and people like you are still completely ignorant to why it happened.

Yes, Bin Laden attacked the US becuase of bases in Saudi Arabia.

Invading countries that had nothing to do with it, like Iraq, won't prevent it from happening again. Understanding why it happened in the first place, just might. If nothing else, you owe it to the victims of the WTC attacks.

And for the love of God, please use capital letters and punctuations to mark the start and end of your sentences.  

I am not at all convinced that 9/11 was done by Bin Laden. The proof that the US provided (such as the passport that miraculously escaped the WTC inferno and the pilot manual found alongside the koran in some car) is laughable. Maybe the attacks are too delicate an issue for most Americans to discuss but I would like to learn/ hear something more about them.

By the way, what is the death count for US soldiers in Iraq?