That should read “incapable or unwilling”. I suspect the latter.
Partly true I think. The political alliences won’t have changed much like you say. However, as an example, after this intelligence failure it will be much harder for the UK government to support US military action on the basis of intelligence information.
I understand your posts just fine. Whenever your points are challenged, you resort to mealy-mouthed backing away or dismissing as “another subject”. It’s disgusting.
I think he rents out Faulty Towers in London. Oh, and we FIRED him! (Doh) The US media can’t be bothered with the actual sources and stories behind the intelligence – that STILL MAINTAIN THE FEDAYEEN MILITIA HAS WMD WARHEADS.
Is it true? Hell if I know. Now I know how everyone with knowledge of this guy felt before the war. He was only a Lt-Col in the Iraqi military in 2002, what would he know?
US MEDIA, UM, HELLO?! “Mr. 45 Minutes” WOULD BE A GREAT INTERVIEW! (The media needs all caps or a boob to notice anything)
You seem to be very easily disgusted.
No, you don’t understand my posts fine, because several times you have put words in my mouth. This is either a misunderstanding, or done deliberately.
In my original post I said “I was thinking about the WMD fiasco in Iraq, and it occurred to me that the faulty intelligence might have more to do with beaurocracy than anything else.” Note the word “might”. This was the original topic for I wanted to put forward for discussion, not how governments may have manipulated the intelligence information. That’s why I said its a separate topic. Well, any meaningful discussion will tend to go off on tangents. As I said earlier “I’d be happy to discuss this in a separate thread.”, which I think is the best place for it. Its probably a more important topic than mine.
Please could you give me an actual example of where I have back-pedalled or backed away from a point, as you have now accused me of twice?
I’m perfectly happy for my points to be challenged reasonably. There would be no point posting on here if I wasn’t. However, I tend to get annoyed when my arguments are misrepresented and dismissed as “bullshit”. I found your first few posts interesting, but you seemed to get upset when I pointed out where you were misunderstanding or misrepresenting me.
Hmmm. Seems to have been ignored for quite some time, since the story from the Telegraph is dated last year. One would think that such breathlessly important information would at least be picked up by the Tighty Righty media, wouldn’t you think? Unless, of course, it was simply too embarassingly bullshit that even they wouldn’t touch it.
Yes, I suspect that may very well be it.
Well, it is from the Telegraph. They have heard of the concept of an impartial press, but long ago decided they want no truck with it. 
You know Beagle, I thought that “timeline blindness disease” of the extreme right media was just a theory. Check the date again:
Saddam’s capture was in mid December, so any moment now……
Any moment…
Or, I should realize that this yahoo reporter is truly a Con.
This was the same twerp that “found” the documents that showed a connection with Al-queda to Saddam, African Yellow cake and that people that opposed the war were in Saddam’s pocket, in short, the works!..… Pity it was shown later that the documents were fakes or discredited.
This reporter, and the Telegraph, are discredited, time to look for more reliable sources Beagle.
As usual, elucidator is far too modest to say, “I told you so,” but it’s beginning to look like he ought to start.
This is just an opinion piece without citations, but this guy’s spin on the faulty intelligence strongly echoes what 'luce was saying way back when. It’s too bad the search engine is borked, because I think he was saying it long before we actually went to war.
Arnaud de Borchgrave says today:
Back in July of last year, elucidator put it much more eloquently:
I think the moment is quickly approaching when we’re all going to have to concede that elucidator’s unwavering mistrust of the Bush Administration has proven to be the closest vision of reality.
And that, my friends, is truly frightening. (wink)
“I love compliments, Heavens, we all do, Congressmen, burglars, humorists…all of us in the trade. But I was struck near speechless by this complimentary thunderbolt! Never had I heard a compliment so well phrased, or so richly deserved!”
- Mark Twain
Well, if that piece is accurate it does a fairly good job of debunking my “beaurocracy” theory of faulty intelligence. So ta Sofa King, thats the closest anyone has got to answering my original questions.
Can anyone find any similar cites to support this piece?
Mr. 45 Minutes has not backed down. I could find more recent articles. His statement is completely consistent with nobody talking. All he said is that nobody would talk until Saddam was captured. That in no way implies that people would feel safe when Saddam was captured. That implies that it is a necessary precondition to anyone talking. I know some people will be unable to see the difference.
The reality is that the Left hates Bush. “Imminent” threats are interpreted differently from administration to adminstration.
The argument WAS “faulty intelligence.” I provide an actual source that still maintains the weapons are out there. This guy was a Lt-Col in the Iraqi military. Which part, exactly, of the US bureaucracy was he in?
Point 1 - It’s Amazing that you know me so well seeing as how we’ve never met. I didn’t know that we knew each other that well. And where in any of these posts did I mention Fox News?
Point 2 - What’s your point? Blair was with Bush, the British Parliament was against him. Nothing’s changed, just like I said. Those who were Bush allies, still are, those who weren’t, still aren’t. And although I don’t know how it was/is in Australia, I’d be willing to bet it’s pretty much the same.
Point 3 - Are you talking about his President Bush’s Approval Rating Little Changed in Harris Poll and is at 51%?
And just because I said that I don’t watch the news as much as I use to, doesn’t mean that I don’t watch it, or listen to it, at all.
And finally, point 4 - This is actually a good point, and I have nothing to argue with about it.
Whatever you say :rolleyes:
Good point. And as long as Bush refuses to admit that there’s a problem, and order some major reforms within the intelligence community, and possibly change his way of doing things if, in fact, he did exaggerate, then it’ll be that much longer that the reliability of our (the US) intelligence is questioned.
So . . . could you?
And even if you could, could you please prove that Mr 45 Minutes isn’t full o’crap? IOW, all your side has is one voice who hasn’t ever backed up what he has claimed. Isn’t the issue of whether he is right or wrong ultimately more important than whether he is still saying what he said way back in July?
Nice equivocating there, with an insult thrown in. I still don’t believe this guy, and don’t see why you do. Why hasn’t he been put on the next plane to London or Washington, to tell his story in complete safety to throngs of adoring journalists who happen to work for Rupert Murdoch?
The reality is that the Right loves Bush, adores him, worships him, lies in bed (fully clothed) with their George W Bush blow-up doll late at night, whispering sweet nothings cribbed from that morning’s “Limbaugh” show. And the Right wanted this war, started it, got 500 or so (so far) American servicemen killed, along with untold numbers of Iraqis, and every conservative in America is doing every kind of rhetorical backfilp to avoid the responsibility for this and somehow affix blame on Clinton, married gay people, anybody else.
Well, wait, that’s unfair, maybe not every conservativefell for it.
Please cite an “imminent” threat faced by every administration going back to, say, Truman, along with how they dealt with it, as well as the current-day ramifications. Ahh, screw it, that would take too long, and you couldn’t find any examples where the administration’s presumptions were as grievously wrong as your beloved Dubbyah’s.
Not sure of your point here. You’ve claimed it’s faulty intelligence that Bush used to justify war–as if it’s all the CIA’s fault–then go on to cite someone who is still spewing stuff that he can’t prove?
This all gets me going. And on a Friday afternoon, too. What if this guy is right? According to him, "The weapons themselves were finally deployed at his own unit towards the end of last year. ‘They arrived in boxes marked ‘Made in Iraq’ and looked like something you fired with a rocket-propelled grenade,’ Lt Col al-Dabbagh explained. “They were either chemical or biological weapons; I don’t know which, because only the Fedayeen and the Special Republican Guard were allowed to use them. All I know is that we were told that when we used these weapons we had to wear gas masks.”
In other words, if this Lt Col al-Dabbagh is right, the WMDs that Iraq threatened us with, could only be launched by rocket-propelled grenades. How the hell did this threaten the US? If your son or daughter died in Iraq, would you say it was justified?
I could go on, but it’s Friday afternoon. Now I’m all worked up. Deep breaths, Airblairxxx, deep breaths, go to your happy place . . .
Not really; you just have an uncanny ability to disgust.
News flash: If your premise is WRONG, it’s not a “tangent”.
You made a stupid assumption that the intelligence was flawed, and that it couldn’t possibly be the case that it might not be flawed, and that Bush might have just exaggerated what he had. And every time anyone brought up the possibility, you came up with this lame “start your own thread” garbage.
No, I don’t think you are. I think it sticks in your craw, and you get upset and cry “no fair, you have to start another thread.”
Actually, you had become quite annoying way before I called your posts bullshit. Hmmm…your first 2 replies were fine, but then you try to dismiss me in your 3rd reply:
No, it’s NOT “another issue completely”. That’s ridiculous.
Then you present your hairbrained theory that Bush wouldn’t have exaggerated anything because he would have been aware of “political backlash”:
Already, you’re sort of making a vague implication that the CIA had to have misled Bush, because he must have expected to find WMDs. But you’re leaving yourself plenty of wiggle room by leaving it vague, in case you need to backpedal later.
Next response, you re-iterate your silly assertion that the point is a seperate matter, which of course it is not; then proceed to a vague, implied ad-hominem attack, while simultaneously misrepresenting my argument:
So now I’m naive; but of course you didn’t really say I was naive, you left yourself wiggle room again.
Then when you respond to my question as to why this “fear of backlash” wouldn’t equally apply to the intelligence agencies as well, you give a vague, non-answer:
Next, you start in with the sarcastic “please read my posts” crap.
A silly semantic nitpick. O.K., you didn’t say it was “irrelevant”; you just refused to discuss it and said it should go in another thread.
And here’s where the backpedaling starts:
Now you’re just talking out both sides of your mouth. Which is it - are you saying Bush didn’t sex-up the intelligence because he was afraid of backlash after the war, or are you saying he could have? And in NO WAY did I put any words in your mouth in the previous statement. I made the point that I don’t believe Bush fears reprisal for his actions very much. Those are words from my mouth, not yours.
And again you try to dismiss my argument as a “seperate topic”.
Then you again accuse me of misrepresenting you:
Do you understand the phrase “If I understand you correctly”? That means my characterization of your argument is conditional on my understanding of it. The proper response would be: “No, Blowero, that’s not what I meant”, rather than accusing me of deliberately misrepresenting you. I did the best I could, considering how unclear you have been, and the fact that you answer questions with things like: “I already covered that” or “that’s another subject”.
It was at that point that I called your arguments “bullshit”, and I stand by it.
One good point there - I did miss the “If I understand you correctly?”.
Otherwise, what a load of nonsense. I don’t leave myself “wiggle room” so I can backpedal later. I don’t know if my original premises are true or not. I have a lot of respect for uncertainty. Thats why I started the thread, I was hoping someone could give me more information or provide a line of argument that might give me a better idea. Well, so far the closest anyone has come is Sofa Man’s article, which suggests that my original argument was not very important to the whole affair.
Strange, I thought we were having an interesting discussion for a while there. You were making some good points, even if I considered them slightly off-topic. If I caused any offence I apologise, that wasn’t my intention.
Why is it a stupid assumption exactly? Events strongly suggest that it was flawed.
Nope, you just didn’t understand me. I think he did exaggerate, I just think they really expected to find some evidence of WMD in Iraq, and thats all that argument covers. Which leads me to believe at some point the government was presented with an exaggerated threat assesement.
You are basically calling me a liar here, and saying you understand my arguments better than I do myself. Either you can believe me and accept that you mis-understood, or I can dig up some threads on another forum from months ago where I said the US & UK administrations were exaggerating the WMD threat for political ends. I was saying this before the war even started.
Sorry if you found this offensive. I was implying that you hadn’t thought this through fully, not saying you were naive. All of us are naive sometimes, possibly my original post was slightly naive (a gross simplification of the issue).
If you think I get upset when challenged, I’d suggest a little more self-awareness is in order.
Pentagon Office of Special Plans (OSP): What’s the Deal?
More relevant now than ever. Take a peep here first…
As noted here OSP:
ahhh the things…