Bush team gets bad info... again!

From the Taipei Times

Terrorism report is `inaccurate,’ Powell declares

[quote]The US State Department acknowledged it was wrong in reporting that terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding used to boost one of President George W. Bush’s chief foreign policy claims – success in countering terror.

Instead, both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said Thursday.[/quote]

Jeez their good at being given the wrong information. Does this count as strike two on a three strikes and your out policy?


[quote=“butcher boy”]From the Taipei Times

Terrorism report is `inaccurate,’ Powell declares

[quote]The US State Department acknowledged it was wrong in reporting that terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding used to boost one of President George W. Bush’s chief foreign policy claims – success in countering terror.

Instead, both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said Thursday.[/quote]

Jeez their good at being given the wrong information. Does this count as strike two on a three strikes and your out policy?


butcher boy,

It sure does seem to be the case that Bush and his staff are often misinformed about many important issues. A more cynical person may claim that whenever Bush wants to do something he simply has a member of his staff

  1. make a statement in which a “justification” is given for the action
  2. then realize that what they are doing is a mistake and can’t be justified
  3. have a staff member then claim they were given wrong information
    Four years is enough with this man as a world leader. The Ameican people deserve much better than this man.

The facts probably came from a Democrat bureaucrat that is a holdover from the Clinton era! :laughing:

No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation[/color]

The panel [the commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] said it found “no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”

The report contradicts statements from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.


The panel also dismissed reports that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech Republic on April 9, 2000. "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred.


The report also found that there was no “convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11” other than the limited support provided by the Taliban when bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan.

cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ … index.html[/quote]

Trust me, Tigerman and fred are not going to believe that. :unamused: :unamused:

Read the whole report. The findings are not as reported by the media. I can show you tomorrow when I have access to my files. You are right Rascal. I do not buy the report. There was cooperation. There were things that were not proved but they were not proved to be not true either. Big difference. We were right to take him out when we did. We are winning. We will win. Try to be a moral actor for a change. You can do it. I am sure that you can. Think of what we have already given Iraq. Think of what we have already saved Iraqis from. The insurgents and terrorists are the ones doing the killing. Why do you think that they are so desperate? why? When Syria and Iran go down, then I will be able to let this go. I will continue to worry about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia but I will be satisfied and ready to call it quits.

this is just one of many reports …

cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06 … index.html


Well of course, but I quit posting for the benefit of fred smith, et al, long ago. As I’ve mentioned before, for Americans there exist 2 separate, nearly disjoint epistemologies for all the facts trailing each outcome during Bush’s presidency: one for the Bushies, one for the anti-Bushies.

They’ll only approach unification in November, at the time of US elections. Even then, as we saw with the death of Reagan a few weeks ago, 2 separate histories, 2 significantly different accounts of events of the past 3 years or so, will likely exist.

It’s the American way! :america:

Hm, Blair. Rings a bell. Oh - now I know, the guy that still insists on Iraq having (had) instant WMDs, i.e. ready to launch in 45 minutes. Ranks 2nd best to Bush about being misinformed and making a lot of errors in speech.

Gosh Rascal:

I would sure hate to put your nation’s leaders to the test of having never made a mistake. That would be rich. Perhaps with a little digging I can also show that the entire German intelligence service believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (after all Germany sold him half of his total cache so it would know right?). So, we went with the best available information and to date, nothing has been proved. That does not mean that it has been proved that nothing was there. Big difference. I am sure that you can recognize that as well.

Anyway, the threat no longer exists. We have taken out Saddam. We will clean up Iraq and move on to deal with Iran and Syria next. The world will be better off because of it. Give us time. Iraq is a mess, but at least it is not the mess or disaster that so many predicted it would be. And why would 1.5 million Iraqis return if it was such a disaster? People voting with their feet is the strongest and best accolade that any government could possibly hope to have. WE have that in Iraq. Give us some credit.

Besides, the German government has been most cooperative these days and has gone out of its way to find common ground. Actually, this has been going on for the better part of a year. Now, the UN has given the US action official sanction. So… WHAT IS YOUR BEEF?

Who cares what the German government says. Maybe you do, but I don’t.

Why is it that you do not care what your own government says Rascal? You are a voter. You are directly responsible for the fact that as a citizen of Germany your country sold Saddam more than half of his wmds. You are responsible as a citizen of Germany for the fact that your own nation’s intelligence agency believed that Saddam had wmds and was noncompliant with UN regulations. As a “world citizen” your precious UN believed that Saddam had wmds and was noncompliant. Your precious UN also is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands because of corruption in the Oil for Food program.

To date, the US has been responsible for less than 1 percent of Saddam’s weapons sales and only during the period when Iran looked set to take Basra. To date, the US directly and indirectly (because you say we are responsible for any and all deaths that occur in Iraq) for 10,000 deaths maximum. Should not your outrage be better directed against your own government where you do have the right to vote and against the UN?

I fail to understand how you have any moral ground to criticize the US at all given the level of involvement your nation where you have the right to vote and elect your leaders had in Iraq.

As long as they only say (discuss, consider etc.) I really don’t care. I do not vote and do not agree with everything the German government does.

Maybe we can now continue to focus on the US, sorry, the topic and argument at hand and not throw in Germany (or Russia, France, Kosovo, Bosnia, Clinton and Reagen, UN etc.) to sidetrack.

For you to understand that and to comply with this simple request would be greatly appreciated.

But why ONLY the US? Is bad information a uniquely American problem? If not, why is it of such interest to Rascal? Is his nation involved in any way? No. Does his nation suffer in any way from this bad information? No. Does he personally suffer or know anyone personally who is suffering from this bad information? No. Is there anything that Rascal can do about it? Anyway to solve this problem? No. Nope. Nada. So what is the interest in this matter stemming from? Does it seem like a genuine interest or does it fit the pattern of anti-Americanism that is so characteristic of Rascal? Just curious. (well not really but let’s call a spade a spade and not pretend that there is any real moral or ethical concern about this matter).

The information that they got wrong…again, was about the ‘global war on terror’. Hence I would have thought that everyone on the globe would be interested in getting the right figures. If Bush inc. claims to be able to produce these figures, uses them to claim that its policies are winning the war on terror, and then we find out the figures ar hogwash, then they gotta expect some stick. Of course that is probably just media bias or anti americanism, or its domestic variant, unamericanism, or whatever, just not fair!


Well, given that Germany sold 50 percent plus of Saddam’s wmds to him, what kind of information were the German people receiving and why aren’t they demanding that such actions not take place in the future? But yet, we see the same German businesspeople trekking to Iran to cut deals and the French in Iran and the Germans and French trying to get the EU to lift the ban on weapons sales to China etc. etc. So tell me, just how bad is it that Bush came up with the wrong info? Who suffers? Was it corrected? How long did it take before it was corrected? Given that ALL nations believed (some like Germany and France and Russia probably KNEW) that Saddam had wmds, how is Bush’s information received at the time inaccurate, wrong or misguided? Just because nothing has been discovered does not mean that it did not exist. Also, Saddam had to prove he did not have wmds. He did not. He is gone. Given the chemical attack planned in Amman and the shells and equipment that has surfaced since, perhaps we need to wait just a bit longer to say that info was wrong. Finally, as to the yellow cake, Bush never said anything about it in his speeches that he had direct proof. He reported that the news came from the British and they have not RECANTED on that subject, but they cannot share the proof with us since it came from a third country intelligence agency and my money is on either the Italians or the French.

So my final question to Rascal is given that his own nation is guilty of far greater abuses, why not direct his anger, outrage and vote against his own government, rather than the US? How has what the US has done any worse? Why the interest? It does not affect him nor anyone he knows directly, so why the constant criticism? If we have inaccurate information, that is something that we have to address and live with. How does it affect others?

It is anti-Americanism or he would be squealing about the fact that his own government sold more than 50 percent of Saddam’s wmds to him. He would squeal about the fact that this information was never properly revealed to the German public or addressed. He would squeal about the fact that his nation has been planning a treaty obligating it to pre-emptively attack terrorist threats the whole while his nation’s UN representative was bellowing about how such actions by the US would set a dangerous precedent. He would howl about the fact that his nation’s businesspeople continue to do the very same things in Iran and elsewhere.

Clinton linked al Qaeda and Saddam

Clinton Linked al Qaeda and Saddam:

"In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands." 

U.S. Admits Mistake in Bombing Sudan

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Clinton administration will not challenge a lawsuit filed by a Saudi businessman, and has agreed to release $24 million in assets that the businessman, Mr. Saleh Idris, had deposited in U.S. banks.
On August 20 last year the U.S. launched cruise missiles at Mr. Idris’ pharmaceuticals plant in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum,
and a camp in Afghanistan after bombs exploded at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The U.S. alleged that both targets had links to the man they blamed for the Kenya and Tanzania bombs, Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden, and that the Al Shifa plant in Khartoum manufactured chemical weapons.

The Al Shifa pharmaceuticals plant made both medicine and veterinary drugs, according to U.S. and European engineers and consultants who helped build, design and supply the plant.

The strikes came on the day that Monica Lewinsky gave evidence on her affair with President Bill Clinton, and bore a much noted resemblance to the movie “Wag The Dog,” in which a U.S. president diverts attention by starting a war.

[color=blue]Note Mr. Idris is the owner of the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals plant the U.S. bombed.[/color]


The Clinton may have made such a statement, but the Bush administration should know better due to Rummie’s close personal ties to Saddam from the days of the Reagan presidency. Here’s Rummie shaking hands with Saddam in 1983, as Reagan’s special envoy on an official visit to ensure that the flow of oil to the US is not hindered.

As National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, states, “Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic.” It does not mention chemical weapons, although Rummie and Ronnie knew at that time of Saddam’s almost daily use of chemical weapons against “Kurdish insurgents.”


Try to keep up with the discussion. We know Rumsfeld visited Iraq in 1983. BUT

More than 50 percent of Saddam’s wmds were sold by Germany. The US was less than 1 percent.

The US sold less than 1 percent of Saddam’s conventional weapons. All sales were made in 1982-3 during which time it looked like Iran would take Basra and maybe keep moving on to Saudi Arabia.

Under those circumstances, what would you have suggested the US do? Pretend to be a disinterested observer and let the action hit the oil fields of Saudi Arabia?

It does look increasingly like Chalabi was being used by Iran to feed misinformation to the US about the extent of Saddam’s MD programmes, etc.

Iran’s intention being to keep Saddam under the kosh and in the limelight, whilst they built up their own WMD.

But they overplayed their hand. They never wanted Iraq to be invaded. Now they have a bunch of US soldiers on their border and, horror of horrors maybe an emerging democratic state. So, they are funding these ‘foreign terrorists’ in iraq to try and hasten the US departure and keep Iraq bogged down.

It seems more and more likely that the recent history of Iraq has been a case of manipulation of events by Iran. Those who wallow in the bad news from Iraq and demand the withdrawal of US troops immediately are perhaps simply being further manipulated by Iran.

Maybe a similar realisation is behind the determination of UN and NATO to step in. Particularly, i suspect, after June 30th.

Some UK mag wrote an article on Iran’s involvement - can’t remember which… will try and find.

Addition: It was the Grauniad: guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, … 24,00.html