USA Image problem?

Those kinds of image problems are inevitable when a foreign power operates in other countries in a cladestine manner. I doubt that the German or Italian authorities would be willing to provide much meaningful help in tracking down terrorists using their country as a base of operations.

 

And my point was that though WMDs were the primary reason that was expressed it wasn't the only reason nor necessarily an overriding one.
Nor is the question of the motivation of President Bush addressed by merely pointing out that he was in error in his assessment (along with US other countries intelligence analysts) of the threat from WMDs.
And of course remarks about his (supposed) lack of intelligence add nothing to the debate but just deflect the discussion away from substantive issues and brings the level of discourse down to the level of name calling, hair pulling etc. which has hitherto been avoided.

 

I belive that both coutries were quite helpfull in tracking terrorists and even stoping some terrorist attacks.

 

Alas I only have a degree in computing and IT, but thanks for the praise.

Just because I think little of your president doesn't mean that I am great, however, for the president of class at harvard I would expect him to be able to read a script without screwing it up.

He said he was a war president, shame he was a war dodger.

 

bush IS a war president ,we are in a war ,he is president ...his 300 plus hours flying military jets in texas was at least as dangerous as most military jobs in vietnam certainly more dangerous than al gores in country job as a reporter for stars and stripes ..flying any military hardware is very dicey even in peacetime..especialy jet fighters maintaned by weekend warriors in the air gaurd...i agree with you about his public speaking skills not being in a class with clintons ,but then ,no other president was as glib as slick william...

 

Fascinating interview:
"We Probably Gave Powell the Wrong Speech"

 

Good post. It provides more evidence that the President was likely misled by the intelligence people (of several countries) though probably not intentionally.

This comment alone provides evidence, even now, that Iraq was continuing research on biological weapons in contravention of UN demands.

 

It doesn't prove they were continuing research just holding onto old research, what for I do not know.


However,


Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy. Right before the war, I said to a very senior CIA officer: "You guys must have something else," because you always think it's the CIA. "There is some secret thing I don`t know." He said: "No. But when we get to Baghdad, we are going to find warehouses full of stuff. Nobody is going to remember all of this."

 

Didnt bush go awol more than once in the ANG ? I also heard he got moved to the top of the list ahead of more qualified people.

btw, it didnt hurt that texas was on top of a sea of oil. You could have had a retard in charge and the economy would've still been booming.

 

Nobody said anything about "proof". It provides evidence.

There is no evidence that any of this was communicated to the President AFAIK.

 

yeah, that report was false,-CBS made them up- and you probably can find lots of people in Vietnam that went AWOL, and going AWOL in Texas natl guard doesn't mean much. I know alot of guys from my home guard unit that go AWOL alot.

 

This is not evidence that they were continuing research on biological weapons just evidence (if this liar was telling the truth this time) of holding onto old material.

And yes you are correct there is no evidence that this was communicated to the president, however, the president makes decisions based on what he is told by his advisors. If he wasn't told this is it because he told them not to tell him so he could be truthful to his own knowledge or they didn't trust him to keep his mouth shut or something else. Surely making a decision of this type he would be fully informed.

 

You are assuming inside knowledge that you have no earthly way of knowing whether it's true or not. There are other hypothesis just as likely as the one you propose yet you dismiss them out of hand with no evidence either way. It might be that they misled the President either knowingly or without intending to do so. It might be that they believed that their analysis was correct and that if they didn't have enough evidence at that time then they would have all the evidence they needed when the troops invaded.

In any case it all supposition and speculation. People will believe that which tends to confirm their preconceived ideas and discount that which tends to contradict them. Absent "smoking gun" evidence that is the way things will remain. History will perhaps judge more objectively than can be done at this juncture.

 

Again you are incorrect, I proposed 2 senarios and followed it with something else to cover others.


This shows that if the quote is correct then their analysis was not correct.

Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy.

The policy should be fitted around the intelligence.

 

When you say "you are incorrect" what you really mean is that you disagree with my opinion. You have no more access to the "correct" answer than I or anyone else. Opinion is what we both are stating.

And yes..your "or something" else was precise and informative

That quote represents Drumheller's opinion and can't be considered as stating the administrations policy but merely what he thought.

 

When i say you are incorrect you said that i only posted one hypothosis and dissmised the others.

I put forward more than one.

As for the or something else I could have put several more theories but chose only to put forward 2 with a ' something else' to keep it short.

 

Arent the guys in your unit conscripts ?

Well, if theres people fighting in the nam and your back in the US then u shouldnt go awol. at the very least u should at least show up for duty.Not a counter point revere

 

There is no draft in the US thus no conscripts. He is referring to the National Guard and the AWOL he is referring to is what we used to call UA or unauthorized absence. It's a temporary case of not being where you are supposed to be. It's not the same thing as desertion.

 

If my add mu 2 cents for this subject.One more things matther here,that is double standards.
1.US allways support israel,eawen when they Invade foreign country (clearly agression).
2.US citizen r imune to International law corst,eawen when is proowed that they commited horible crimes.In best case only soldier r two got slap on the hand as the punisment,no higher officer/polititian was ewer charged.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong Grieg but during the Vietnam war (time of Bush being deserter) US DID have draft.
Just a small note here. I'm military reservist (like National Guard in US). If i don't show up for military excercise when called i would be in deep shit and hauled in front of a court before you can pronounce UPS. And that's in peace time, Bush did it when US were at war in SEA. If his daddy was not big man in politics (and CIA) he would serve time behind bars.