Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 25 May 2012, 20:13:53 pm *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: WMD inquiry  (Read 1191 times)
guzzler
Newbie
*
Posts: 37


View Profile
« on: 03 February 2004, 9:19:00 am »

 http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/sprj.nirq.iraq.wmd/index.html

Good ole George W.  Wants to get to the truth, huh?  Is that why he will be appointing this "bipartisan" comission instead of it being an independent inquiry?

Oh, and he'll be giving his commission until next year to convene.  Isn't that convenient!  This way any wrongdoing by him or his administration won't be made public by this commission until after the election.

This kind of Sh*t makes me embarrased to be an American.  I just hope that the American people will be able to see what is going on here an give this guy the boot come November.

To some of the frequent posters:  It's not a CIA consiracy!!!  Just poor leadership and tricky politics.  Thought I'd get that out of the way early.

Logged
ExpatSingapore Message Board
« on: 03 February 2004, 9:19:00 am »



 Logged
EyeSpy
Full Member
***
Posts: 176


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 03 February 2004, 11:01:00 am »

And Tony Bliar (sic) has been quick to jump on his coattails and launch an enquiry in the UK too. It's oh, so easy for the Government to blaim the intelligence services. Of course TB is the Houdini of British politics.
Logged
Rich Kwik
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: 03 February 2004, 11:23:00 am »

What got me was watching CNN this morning, and George Bushie telling reporteers that this will be a bi-partisan effort to find the facts "Along the lines of the Warren Commision"!!
This is the same commision that covered up the Kennedy assassination! Do these people have no depths to sink to?
Here's my prediction: Since Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor has declared that Bush will win all 50 states forthe first time, and they have set up touch screen paperless balloting in the next election (no pesky ballots to recount! - SEE: http://www.think.cz/issue2/56/2c.html)
There will be a negative reaction to the Iraq situation, the majority will vote against Bush, yet he will "Win" (ala Florida) the election across the board, then we will have a right fine mess... amerikkka's first dicatator!
Logged

War is just Terrorism with a bigger budget.
EyeSpy
Full Member
***
Posts: 176


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 03 February 2004, 11:40:00 am »

Just saw the following in today's Guardian online.....

In his own words

The PM has stuck to his line: weapons are there, the doubters will be disproved...

'[Saddam's] weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working'
September 24 2002

'I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the UN is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change'
November 18 2002

'Not only do we know that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we also know he is capable of using them'
November 30 2002

'We are now asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history and all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd'
March 18 2003

'Tonight, British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction'
March 20 2003

'Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a little bit. I remain confident that they will be found"
April 28 2003

'I am absolutely convinced that and confident about the case on weapons of mass destruction... you and others will be eating some of your words"
April 30 2003

Logged
PhilM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1096


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: 03 February 2004, 22:10:00 pm »

Note the inquiry being set up by Blair will categorically NOT consider the following: -

1. Political decisions made based on the available intelligence prior to invading Iraq.

2. Any matters already considered under the Hutton inquiry.

3. Any matters considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee last year.

4. Any other matters in relation to WMD that have already been looked into!

In other words it will lay any blame firmly at the feet of the Intelligence Agencies whilst showing Blair and his cronies to be entirely without blame. The Conservatives are fools for agreeing to support such a rigged inquiry; at least the Liberal Democrats had the good sense to refuse to take part because they saw it was rigged.

Logged
Joseph27
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1506



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: 04 February 2004, 10:34:00 am »

NO wonder Downing Street detests the BBC. Take your mind back to the episode of Yes, Minister wherein Jim Hacker expressed great concern about a looming political scandal. Should the media twig what had been going on, Jim's brilliant career would be considerably tarnished. His unflappable permanent head, Sir Humphrey, sought to soothe the panicking politician by suggesting that the best approach would be to hold a "top-level inquiry", chaired by some "sound fellow" from the City, one hopeful of preferment. Perhaps a chappie yearning for an appointment to the Bank of England board?

Jim needed convincing. "But what if he found out something we didn't want him to find out?" With a silken smile, Sir Humphrey explained that you don't set up an inquiry until you've determined its outcome. Hence the all-importance of choosing the Chair, the right sort of chappie from the right club. As well, there'd be the terms of reference, guaranteed to keep things neat, tidy and uncontroversial. Which brings us to Lord Hutton, very much the right sort of chappie. Happy to work within terms of reference that others might find not just constricting but absurd, Hutton deflected the inquiry from any evaluation of the ludicrous "intelligence" provided to Downing Street – focusing his entire efforts on a few contested words in a BBC report. Why Tony Blair dragged a reluctant nation into a war that caused thousands of casualties was ignored, with everything focusing on the whys and wherefores of the apparent suicide of just one troubled man. It's like having an international tribunal in The Hague devoting weeks to criticising Slobodan Milosevic's grammar. Or having the goings on at Gallipoli reduced to an investigation by the RSPCA into Simpson's donkey.

And Hutton did his job beautifully. Blair and the Machiavellian Alastair Campbell were not merely not guilty but deemed transcendentally innocent. Whereas the BBC's chairman was beheaded – in much the same way as earlier traitors were axed at the Tower. Hutton even suggested that, in the future, contentious BBC reports should be fully scripted and approved by those on high, rather than allowing them to be reported by shabby, shoddy and unpatriotic journalists.

The sideshow allowed the British Government to ignore ongoing revelations in Washington about those fictitious WMD. And it has allowed our Government to do the same. By focusing on Hutton's happy ending, the John Howard who excised the word "sorry" from his vocabulary had the cheek to demand an apology from any of us who doubted – and still doubt – his version of events. Moreover, the many enemies of public broadcasting are sharpening their knives to make a meal of the ABC. Any chook-like sounds you hear in the background aren't a consequence of birds being slaughtered in Asia but the crowing of Richard Alston, who still hopes to slaughter the ABC. The old rooster has returned to the fray, clearly yearning for a world wherein broadcasts are subjected to something approaching wartime censorship.

The Beeb's critics don't like the way the organisation enjoys comparative freedom from government by having an income stream from licences. They'd prefer to have the organisation on the drip, so that it can be punished for perceived misdemeanours. In much the same way as funding has been employed to bully Australia's public broadcaster.

But for others that's not enough. The organisation's competitors are calling for the Beeb to be sent to the scrapyards, for it to be dismembered and/or privatised. It won't happen there – and can't happen here – because of a small problem. Overwhelming public support for the principles – and the practice – of public broadcasting. In its analysis, its findings and its recommendations, the Hutton report is inept. Either extraordinarily naive about the way media operates in a democracy or a piece of deliberate malevolence. Either way, a clear majority of the British public isn't buying it and there's a growing backlash.

There's talk of a whitewash while the Beeb has retaliated with accusations of systematic bullying and intimidation over its coverage of the Iraq war, tabling a letter from Blair to Greg Dyke written long before the corporation's claim that the Government's dossier of Iraq's WMD was sexed up.

In due course, despite all the Sir Humphreys and all the King's Men, the story of why the UK and Australia went to war will finally emerge. And when it does it may be Blair and Howard who'll need to apologise. To their nations and to history.
Messenger shot in war sideshow - PHILLIP ADAMS

Logged

"truth is a group of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms; a sum of human relation which is poetically and rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed and adored so that after a long time it is then codified in the binding canon."
Dr Opinion
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1418


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 04 February 2004, 10:36:00 am »

> "...The Conservatives are fools..."

You make the flawed assumption that Conservative criticism of the Goverment is due to a desire to see Justice and Transparency, as opposed to merely tarnishing an opposing party in order to win an election.  

Logged
PhilM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1096


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 04 February 2004, 10:39:00 am »

Meanwhile back at Daddy's place:-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20040203/cx_po_uc/po20040203
Logged
patch900
Full Member
***
Posts: 127


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: 04 February 2004, 14:08:00 pm »

Hans Blix anyone?
who was more or less hounded by Bush and eventually when he stated that he felt Iraq had destroyed its "WMD" he was subjected to a pretty heavy smear campaign by the right wing. I havent heard his name once in the last few days.................
Logged
Dr Opinion
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1418


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: 08 March 2004, 23:35:00 pm »

How can bush even run?

There were no WMD!

He lied, or was a fool!

(Or both)

GET THAT MAN AWAY FROM THAT BUTTON!  

Logged
Bruno
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: 08 March 2004, 23:50:00 pm »

Sometimes I just have to rub my eyes.

At the same time that Iraqis from across the socio-political spectrum are signing a new constitution, you guys are still whinging about the lack of WMD.

Get over it. Saddam tried to play the Great Game, he lost and the world is a better place for it.

Logged
GrassIsGreener
Full Member
***
Posts: 134


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: 09 March 2004, 3:09:00 am »

Bruno has a great point.

Q: What is the best thing for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti looking forward? A: Success with the current US-led efforts.

Q: What is the worst thing that can happen to both? For each country to slip back to its previous regime:

Afghan: A brutal foreign regime that not only tried to oblierate the past of Afghani history but imprison the women of Afghan. Why Western women are so outraged over Bush and said nary a peep over the polight of Afghani women is so frakin' hypocritical it is beyond disgust.

Iraq: Well, let's see. A brutal regime, three regional wars; use of chemical weapons; ethnic cleansing; and now the possibility of regligious fanatics grabbing hold of power. Fine, go ahead and hate the US, but to wet your pants with glee over the potential failure of the US in Iraq truly reveals deeply held racism against  the people of the Middle East

Haiti: Let's see 200 years of repeated diasasters. A (once) beautiful country. MOst people under 30. Real need for long-term development and a desperate need for the rule of law. Requires very active engagement and "meddling." Yet to try will of course bring out the naysayers and anti-Americanism. Funnily enough, never does one hear of any constructive from the "other side."

SO how about we put aways the dramatic anti-Americanism and discuss real solutions from THIS point forward. My guess, is that any solutions put forth will probably look very similar to what is being attempted by the US in each country.

Is the US doing a perfect job? Of course not. Last time I chcked , no one country possessed an omniscient being that could see into the future.

But I would like to see the tenor of dsicussions toward practical solutions rather than tireless and dreadfully boring anti-American rants...

Logged
nualum
Full Member
***
Posts: 179


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: 09 March 2004, 6:53:00 am »

Bruno missed the point. The issue is not whinging. It is recognition of the fact that Mr. Bush cooked up the WMD rationale for starting a war, a war he had intended from his first day in office. The concern is that he will do it again if reelected. Several of his neocon administration people have been explicit about saying that Syria and Iran are definitely in their gun sights--and maybe even Saudi Arabia and Egypt. If Bush and his neocon staff do decide to start wars with any or all of these nations, a similar specious rationale will be used to justify a "preemptive" war.

And, of course, that more than 500 American military have died in this adventure--to say nothing of thousands who have been wounded--is relevant to judging whether phoney rationales are something we should just get over.

Grass misses another point. We will not make the world safe for democracy, or even Afghanistan, Iraq, or Haiti, unless we do two things: practice what we preach and pay the piper.

In neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have we set up democratic procedures--or a democratic government. In Iraq we have been especially undemocratic. We appoint a council which was supposed to appoint other people to recommend yet other people to be on an interim governing council. There was nothing democratic about this scheme; it was undisguised rigging of the whole affair. In both places, we engage in mass arrests, long term detentions without charges, collective punishments, no access to lawyers or families. We have over 10K prisoners in the same prisons Saddam maintained--and nobody can find out who is in them, what they are charged with, and how they can get out. We also treat these places like colonies where our corporations profit and indigenous businesses get only the crumbs. I am not saying we are acting like vandals or out of malice. This is a tough job, and we are not doing it well.

The reason is that we are really not willing to pay the piper. $87Bn is a lot of money, but most of that money is going to American contractors. The reality, denied from the beginning by the Bush administration, is that installing democracy in these two countries would cost a fortune. It would also require more military on the ground. I don't think American taxpayers have the attention span or the general willingness to pay for the necessary resources to do the job right. Nor does this administration. Based on our experience in Afghanistan, anyone should have known we were in over our heads--at least as far as being willing to do and pay for what was necessary. Going into a second country where we will also be unwilling to do what is necessary to support a democratic system is unbelievably cynical.

As for Haiti, despite our professed commitment to democratic governments, we pulled the rug out from underneath the feet of a democratically elected president and his government. A major reason for his failures is that we did not provide promised foreign aid--and in a country that poor, even the meagre aid we promised could have made the difference his being able to show some benefits to the citizens and his not being able to deliver anything. Also, Strom Thurmond, chairman of the senate foreign affairs committee for decades, had an intense dislike for Aristide; he believed Aristide is another Castro. As a result of this animus, the US government has been anti-Aristide for many years. In Haiti's case, we again did not practice what we preach or pay the economic piper.

Logged
GrassIsGreener
Full Member
***
Posts: 134


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: 09 March 2004, 9:12:00 am »

Nualam,
My God, man. It has been less than two years in one place and less than one in the other. Besides, both countries have not had nothing resembling free thought for 1-2 generations? My goodness. You must be part of the new generation of instant gratification.

These things take time. There will ALWAYS be opposition from those who held power before. Why is that so difficult to understand. While looters run roughshod in Haiti, 95% of the population is deathly poor and desperate for a single chance to build a life for themselves and their families.

Cut the crap with WMD and Bush. WHoever the President is, he/she will always work in the best interest of the US. Period. End of Story. Get over any vestiges of utopianism. The issue not not whether Bush lied (good grief, man!) but whether the people from country X can emerge in better stead.

I personally don't want to make the world safe for democracy.  The  track record for democracy is spotty at best. However, when people are repressed so intensely as they were in these three countries, I am behind efforts to change things. Is for the oil? Who cares? Do you think the US or any other sane government will spend billions (i.e. my tax dollars) if they got nothing out of it? Of COURSE NOT. Anybody who thinks otherwise had best wake up.

In order to govern a country wracked by 30 years of brutal war, the last thing I would want is to hand over controls for a free election...What planet do you live on, friend? An interim council is the smartest way to run things. Precisely the transitional governing bodies in place in Western Europe and Japan after the war.

I don't want the US to build a democratic system in any country. That's their responsibility. But if we can plant the seeds folks might be able to live their lives.

But before I leave you, please refrain from being so flippant or indignant with certain words and catch phrases. Look, the U S is not colonizing these countries. I'll be more blunt, YOU are WRONG if you think so. Are US firms their to make a profit? Of course they are. Is US there to serve its self-interest? Of course it is. Give me a break if you think firms on the outside looking in are not thinking the same way. Please...so frustrating. There are NO colonies being established. You do a terrible injustice to those countries that were colonized in the past.

Because the US gets the lion share of contracts, you are all aghast. Please. Last time I checked, Bechtel was not sending over 300,000 American engineers to do the job of rebulding. Most likely, the work and pay that  Iraqi and Afghani engineers will see in the next few years will be among the most lucrative jobs in their lives.  Don't be so shocked that the US firms are in it for the profit. Good grief, of course they are!!!

To me, it is clear. You are part of generation N, the naive generation, the generation that thinks that present day creature comforts just...are, that they just appeared and that is how things have always been.

Pick up your pencil. Note the yellow paint. That paint came from a long string of chemical discoveries. The production of that paint came from chemical companies which at some point polluted the hell out of some wonderful fly fishing river in Anytown USA or in wouthern Taiwan or on the West Coast of SIngapore.  See that rubber. It may have come from Malaysian rubber forests run by REAL ex-colonists who most likely employed some degree of indentured servents or even SLAVES. And what about that wonderful wood? Could have easily come from the chopping down of Brazlian rain forest, the very trees whose decimation  is likely causing Greenhouse effects.

Try this excercise with everything you own. What will you learn? That you, my friend, are directly involved in the corporate and capitalist forces that are creating the incentives for competition and war. Unless you till the ground yourself, butcher your own meat, make your own clothes from the hides and sinews of your herd, please, please stop with all the anti-globalization rhetoric and finger pointing at the US. Instead, do something about it in real terms.

You speak of coropratism as if its an American phenomenon...Are you kidding me? For whom do you work for? The mickey Mouse Club? Geez. Open your eyes. Share in the guilt. You my friend are directly responsible for all that goes on, as I am and everyone else on this board.

Your heart is in the right place, but you need a couple more years of education on how the business world has always worked. Ugly and nasty, yes. But the world has not seen any other way?

Chance are if you revealed your country and your family's past, you are likely as guilty as sin, perhaps even more than joe blow Bechtel engineer risking life and limb to help build a bridge in a hostile area of Afghanistan.  So please work on solutions and not finger pointing. It just gets so old so quickly!! Post after post from people who some from countries with as many evils in their past. Please ofer solutions and not tit-for-tat finger pointing.

Logged
Dr Opinion
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1418


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: 09 March 2004, 9:17:00 am »

> "...Bruno has a great point..."

Keep rubbing, Bruno: it's time you woke up.

If a democratic leader *lies* to get his country into a personally profitable war, this is clearly a terrible catastrophy for good governance... assuming the country claims to be peaceful.

Of course, after thousands of women and children are dead, this democratic leader must point to a constituency who are pleased with the devastation. There will always be some disenfranchised group who can be counted on to love the changes... even for no reason than their cut of the spoils.

For example, when Islam finally destroys the American Republic -- which is what will happen unless we see some changes and sharpish -- the American "Nation Of Islam" will rejoice. So would other minority constituencies.

In fact, if the invaders were clever enough with the kickbacks, a *majority* of minority constituencies might approve of the invasion!

This in *no* *way* would justify an invasion of America!

And any new constitution signed by the Nation of Islam would not change that fact, buddy.  

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines