Bush team gets bad info... again!

Politics International Politics
41

Okay. I have it.

The totals from the NY Times (you have to pay US$2.95 to get to the archieves) for the article are as follows:

“Who Armed Iraq? Answers the West Did Not Want to Hear” by Douglas Jehl Washington from July 18, 1993.

These figures are ONLY for wmd and wmd related programs.

Germany 64.5 percent
Switzerland 8 percent
Italy 5 percent
France 5 percent
Brazil 4 percent
Britain 3.5 percent
US 3.5 percent
Austria 3 percent
Argentina 2.5 percent

Sorry I cannot cut and paste anything out of the article but you are more than free to go ahead and check it out for yourself if you like. Again, the 3.5 percent for the US was PRIMARILY for computers. So less than 1 percent otherwise or 3.5 percent because of all the computers. Got it.

42

Whaooooo! Whaoooooo! Where are you Rascal? Busted again so you have run off without a comment? Now, that we have established firmly that Germany, France and Russia were the big bad asses who armed Saddam to the teeth, what do you have to say about their behavior in the UN prior to the vote? Wonder why these figures were not widely reported by oh I don’t know the NY Times which published the article after all and say CNN. I did not take me long to get this information so what are our enterprising young reporters doing? Seems that the NY Times should be apologizing not for lack of critical reporting about Bush administration claims but for totally ignoring criticism that could be directed at the corrupt and amoral governments of Germany, France, Russia and the UN. Wanna talk about international law now Rascal? Hmmm? Didn’t think so. So run off as usual and I expect in three months that you will demand I put all this information up again since you don’t “recall” that I ever posted anything about any of this. Right? That’s the usual modus operandi with you isn’t it? hahahaah Whip yourself with that towel REAL hard Rascal. Crab Walk. Crab Walk. Crab Walk.

43

My comment is above - you are telling us nothing new regarding the WMD sales by Germany.
So what is your point (beside sidetracking and taking this thread off-topic)?

PS: I rekon Bush made America look bad, not me.

44

Whaaaooooo!

Rascal?

45

Whaooooo! What’s this Rascal? Bush made America look bad not you? I am taking this thread off topic? That’s the best that you can do? Come on Rascal? Whip yourself with that towel REAL hard. Put some effort into it boy! Come on, let’s hear you squeal. hahaha Crab Walk. Crab Walk. Crab Walk.

46

Oh Rascal: Yooo hooo Rascal?

No comments on this one? No facts that you need to have double checked on this one? Huh? No?

Whip yourself with that towel boy. Get going on that and make it slap real loud. Whooooooaaa!

47

Compared to you I can well accept facts and don’t need to comment on everything (as in: defend my government against any criticism).
Perhaps this is the difference between you and me - I do not see a need to deny, excuse or justify any wrong-doings by my country, the two of you are anyhow much better at that (related to your country). :upyours:

And just to remind you on the topic: ‘Bush team gets bad info… again!’ - Now what have you to say about this?

48

Good point Rascal.

misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf

Whooooaaaa Fred. What do you have to say about that?

49

Whooooaaa! Rascal hahahaha admits that his country is wrong. Not just wrong Rascal but immoral and evil. Think of all that weaponry going to Iraq. Germany sells 64.5 percent of Saddam’s wmd arsenal and we are talking about America’s 3.5 percent most of which was computers.

Well I have posted another thread, the Financial Times no less, which substantiates Bush’s assertion about the yellow cake sales from Niger. This was howled down in the media as wrong information. Well it was not. Bush was assailed for saying that Iraq and al Qaeda had links. He never said he had proof that Iraq was directly involved in 911. Prove that to me if you disagree. Find his quote where he said Saddam was involved in 911. You cannot because he did not make it. So al Qaeda and Iraq did have contacts. That’s all he said. Where’s the wrong information. Now, you want to focus on wmds and the lack of discovery but EVERYONE including Germany, France (and they should know) believed that he had wmds. Funny how the support for Saddam was strongest in the UN from the countries that armed him. Just a coincidence or fear that these contacts would be revealed?

Now, just because we have not found wmds does not mean that they did not exist. Not being able to prove something (and it was Saddam’s responsibility to prove he did not have them) is not the same as proof that something does not exist. After all, Saddam had tens of thousands of pages documenting each and every little detail about his wmd programs but not one sentence on weapons that were destroyed nor could he point to one site and say that’s where we destroyed them so inspectors could test? Strange, huh?

The report on terrorist activity was amended. What’s your point? Is Bush arguing that it should not be amended? No. So where’s the beef? Reports are revised every day. Look at economic forecasts. The reporters and left have been howling about the US$550 billion deficit this year. Now, it is only US$365 billion because the economy has been growing so strongly. Does that mean that they have “wrong information yet again?”

50

Fred
economic forcasts are just that… forcasts. As in they are predictions about the future.
The information they got wrong in the case of the terrorism figures was not a forcast. It was about past events. In my world I expect them to be able to get those figures a lot closer to the truth than predictions about the future.

What is the point? Well the Bush administration used the original figures to make certain claims about their success in the war on terror for political reasons. ie lowest deaths from terrorism in years we are winning we are great etc etc. Fact that it was actually the highest number of deaths from terrorism ever means that they were wrong in their politically based assertions about the war on terror. Have we heard a retraction of those statements? No. So that’s the point. Understand?

51

Of course, the report has been retracted. Haven’t you seen any of the stories with Colin Powell clarifying that the information was wrong and that the report was amended?

52

The report was retracted but what about the stuff about winning the war on terror etc. Think of the fall out from this as evening out the positive spin the administration generated for itself from original bullshit report.

53

Again what’s the surprise - at least I can admit (and have done so before on other issues) that Germany was wrong - something we will probably never hear you say about the US even the facts tell otherwise (e.g. the “recent” years since WW2). But perhaps we can agree that both are evil?

Where is the assertion as Bush withdraw those claims? I mean does the man know what he is talking about or not!?
Fact is he did not know, his information were poor. If he knew or had good information he would have been able to prove his earlier claims and maintain them.
Strangely that exactly supports the position I had from the beginning - intelligence was flawed and yet Bush & Co. claimed to be stating facts and to know. The didn’t (and that’s probably the only thing they really knew).

Yawn. What others believed is no proof of anything either and it was not others that started a war on those arguments and then embarrased themselves (so far) by not finding any.
You were one of those claiming foul for the past 12 years and supported to speed up things by interrupting UN inspections and invading Iraq - now more time has passed than what Blix predicted he would need and, as you just admitted, we still don’t know for sure.
Kind of embarrassing for the US if you ask me and further proof of “promises” that the US can’t keep.

Wow, you are a genius to reach that conclusion - but see if I can beat you at this (or at least keep up with you):

Now, just because the US has not found wmds does not mean that they did exist. Not being able to find something (and it was the US’ responsibility to prove that their claims and accusations hold up) is not the same as proof that something did exist.

54

Ah but Butcher Boy:

I do believe that we are winning the war on terror. Sure a lot of this is more violence but it is in the open now. Look at the former pattern, all attacks on US and Israeli targets. Now the whole world is suffering and this is what is needed to get the moderate Muslims to stop sitting on the fence. They need to be just as involved in shutting down terrorism as we are. And I think that al Qaeda made a very big strategic error when they started bombing Muslim targets but hey like I said, it is pushing the moderates over to us.

Would we have taken a poll during World War II to find out what the Germans and Japanese thought of us? hell no. It was about winning the war and so should this.

55

Rascal:

We were not obligated to prove anything. Saddam was obligated to prove he was in compliance. EVERYONE agreed that he was not from Blix to France to Germany to…

So, okay, the US was WRONG and the FACTS were WRONG. So what’s the big deal. The US was wrong about wmds but that does not mean that it was wrong to demand along with your precious UN 17 times that he comply.

Now, do you believe that the US was deliberately trying to invade Iraq regardless of whether he had wmds or not? If so, prove it. You cannot. I equally believe that Germany which sold 64.5 percent of his wmds and France with 13 percent of conventional and 5 percent of wmds and lots of lucrative oil contracts and Russia with 59 percent of his conventional arms and lots of lucrative oil contracts PLUS the UN with its corruption in the Oil for Food program which rewarded top UN, French and Russian officials, had far more to gain by NOT allowing the US to invade and take out Saddam once and for all than the US had to gain by invading and committing our armed forces to the country for the long term and for what? Are we disproportionately benefiting from Iraq’s oil? Are we controlling the oil industry? We have given US$18 billion of our own money to rebuild Iraq and have written off Iraqi debt while France refuses to do so.

My question then becomes why does this bother you so much. The US was wrong about some of the facts yes I totally agree or we cannot prove them so just as bad from a PR point of view but looking at the end goals, what is your beef? The UN supports the US led coalition and did so unanimously. The new Iraqi government has been recognized by everyone. No one misses Saddam do they? So when even your own country supports the US moves now, what is your continued beef? The US was wrong about a few facts? EVERYONE believed that he had wmds. Are you also mad at the UK, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Czech Republic, Japan, Thailand, South Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Slovenia etc. etc for sending troops as well? Yeah. What about the British? This whole effort was pretty close to a 50-50 leadership split between the US and the British and a lot of our intelligence came from the British. Do you have the same beef with them? AND given that you are in no way whatsoever involved financially or militarily what the hell do you care. If the American government lied, it is up to the American people to decide what to do about that. Your country did not believe the US and so did not get involved. That is your choice. Anyone who believes that we lied can get out now like Spain but how does any of this affect you in any way at all? Nada. So butt out.

Also, curious to know whether you support action in Sudan and if so what the differences between Iraq and Sudan would be.

56

And to obtain that proof was job of … correct, the on-going UN inspections. Duh.

Further the argument was made that the US wanted to verify the state of Iraq’s WMD - so why did the US not say we go in to VERIFY the state of the WMD but instead claimed Iraq has WMD!?
Explain this.

But it wasn’t EVERYONE that invaded Iraq, was it?

57

And that is my point Rascal, those countries that did not agree did not invade Iraq. So what? There is no international government. We can act without your approval and that is really what bothers you isn’t it? That the US does not give Germany and France a veto over its actions. We were tired of waiting for 12 years. You were patient and ready to continue. Fine. That was your choice. This was ours, but now that even your government and the UN have approved our involvement, what is the continued bitterness and angst all about it? Get over it. We did what we wanted. We were wrong about some things but right about others. So? Where is your beef? It’s not your place to say what the Americans should or should not expect of their leaders. Vote in Germany. But even voting in Germany will never get you a veto over America. Or would you like us to stick with the UN as having the final say. This is an organization that would vote democratically even though a large percentage of its members are not democracies. This is an organization that allows Cuba, China and Sudan on the human rights commission but not the US, this is an organization that was coopted to the highest levels by Saddam and his money under the Oil for Food program. Is this the organization that should have final say over what happens in the world? If so, why not more outrage from you about American actions in Kosovo and Bosnia or even Afghanistan? Hmmm? This is what has people like me so confused. What do you really care about?

58

Fred, i agree that the UN has lost its credibility, rightfully so, but at the same time countries should not be allowed to invade other sovereign nations just because they are unhappy about the way that country is run etc. There does need to be some form of international government that has the FINAL say on anything.

That used to be the UN, but the time has come IMHO for the UN to be disbanded and a new organisation put in its place with much stricter controls regarding corruption etc.

The US has also abused its position in the UN by automatically vetoing any UNSC issue on Israel. Is this really any different in principle to what France did by saying that they would veto any resolution authorising a UN invasion of Iraq.

The UN or its replacement should be working in the best interests of the world, and there should be no automatic vetoes, this as a concept leads to corruption and coercion.

59

Considering that Israel is a democracy and a nation that respects laws and human rights, I think that there are more complex reasons for our support of Israel. Also, I do not think that anyone has ever proved that the US government does so because of Israel’s Oil for Bagels program has coopted top US officials. If you want to see cooption in that regard you would have to look more closely to how Saudi Arabia hires ex US officials to represent its interests but again this is nowhere near what France has pulled and did pull in the UN. Given then that there is no world government people will have to realize that they cannot and do not have the right to veto US actions. They may resent that but they have no right to do so. This is Rascal’s problem. This is why he is so angry. Tough bounce. I agree that we should be sensitive to other nations’ concerns but that does not mean we have to all agree and really isn’t the Iraq effort more about a few nations in Europe stopping what the majority wanted. Just because France and Germany are two of the largest nations does not give them the right to veto Estonia or Lativia or Ukraine. Ironic when you think about it. The Germans and French are mad because the US does not listen to them but fail to understand why they have alienated most of the rest of Europe because of their similar actions (deficits exceeding targets, voting rights, opposition to Iraq). If there had been an EU vote about Iraq the US would have won. What do France and Germany have to say about that given that they have been most keen to promote such a joint EU policy, oh but only when it serves French and German interests? Right.

60

Really!? I understood highlighting the believes of others as a kind of justification for invading Iraq and an excuse for being incompetent to find the stuff the US claimed to be there.

This is not a question of “can” but of “should”. One can do a lot of things but it doesn’t mean they should be done or are the right thing to do.
We don’t need an international government as such but we need some intl. rules to play by - and IMHO those rules were set by the UN but violated by the US.

So yes, you can - but it wasn’t really an act that has set a good example for all the countries you consider part of the problem, probably it has turned them further away from playing by the rules (as far as they did or would have done in future) and thus it didn’t make the world a safer place but rather the opposite.

Spare me any comments about what policies Germany or others have adpated as they did not act under that and if they would, in the way the US did, remains highly hypothetical - in particular in Germany’s case.

Agree as long as you restrict yourself mainly to domestic issues - so why is America to interfere in souvereign countries like Iraq by invading them? Why is America to say what others do and don’t but nobody is to tell America? Everyone is evil but never the US, huh?