View Full Version : WMD re-cap

09-17-2004, 12:26 AM

Charles Duelfer finished his report. No nuclear programs. Dig back to Khidir Hamzas expert testimony in 2002 Senate hearings. Hamza had been debunked by the CIA,,but Rumsfields advisor Richard Perle and AEI related groups supported him.. There was no bad intelligence. There was subversion of the intelligence system by Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz.
The soft stupidity of vapid campaign phrases can't cover for the inability to discern fact from faith.

Jim H
09-17-2004, 07:53 AM
Then explain why the French Government offered us the use of their NBC units just before the start of the war? Or should we talk about the Sudan? Give them another 30 days or so to quit killing people. We'll stay color blind on the subject. Should we talk about Iran's defiance of the IAEA or North Korea's? The brilliant negotiations in the 90's that let Kim Il Sung build a bomb and get food and money while doing so. This model suggests that if we send food & money to oil rich Iran (who needs a nuclear (nuk-u-lar) reactor for electricity, they care about global warming) they won't build a bomb either, right?

The last thing anyone wants to hear is another story about the Oil-for-Food Program and who was profiting while children starved. The U.N. lied and people died.

Jim H
09-17-2004, 08:04 AM
When you think about it, after Bosnia, Rwanda, Oil-for-Food, and now the Sudan, I think you could classify the U.N. as a WMD. I wonder how many people died while the French denied?

09-17-2004, 08:11 AM
The soft stupidity of vapid campaign phrases reveals the inability to discern fact from faith.

This is a transcript from The World Today. The program is broadcast around Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio.

You can also listen to the story in REAL AUDIO and WINDOWS MEDIA formats.

Colonel says Iraq strategy post-war poorly planned PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
The World Today - Friday, 17 September , 2004 12:34:00
Reporter: John Humphrys
ELEANOR HALL: The concerns about the Coalition of the Willing's preparation for post-war Iraq are long-founded, and have received further backing from one of Britain's most famous Iraq soldiers.

Colonel Tim Collins came to prominence when he gave a passionate speech on the eve of the war urging his troops to be ferocious in battle and magnanimous in victory stressing that they were there to liberate, not conquer.

President George W. Bush is reported to have hung a copy of the speech on the wall of the Oval Office during the first few days of the war.

Well, Colonel Collins has since left the Army, but in his first interview since his time in Iraq, he told the BBC's John Humphrys that he's deeply critical of the way things have unfolded in Iraq since the invasion.

TIM COLLINS: My batallion and myself very much look forward to liberating the people of Iraq, and we were very much Iraqi-centric. And our view was that the whole Causus Belli was to lift this burden of oppression from one of the more notable peoples of the Middle East.

Now, there was very little preparation, it was clear, or thought given to what would follow on after the invasion itself, in that there was really no plans for setting up an Iraq thereafter.

The simple fact is that nature abhors a vacuum, that's sort of politics. And if you knock something down, you must be prepared to put something in its place to replace, or live with the consequences of that which fills the vacuum.

It's fair to say that the United States and its ally, the UK, are living the consequences of having removed the Ba'athist regime without any thought about what would replace it, and are living with those consequences.

JOHN HUMPHRYS: But in what sense does that raise questions about the motivation for going to war in the first place? Might that not just simply be incompetence?

TIM COLLINS: Oh, there's no doubt there's a great deal of incompetence involved, but I think ultimately one also has to look at the reasons for going to war – either it was a war to liberate the people of Iraq, in which case there's gross incompetence, or it was simply a cynical war that was going to happen anyway to vent some form of anger on Saddam Hussein's regime with no regard to the consequences on the Iraqi people, in which case it's a sort of form of common assault. And the evidence would point towards the latter.

JOHN HUMPHRYS: That's quite a strong expression to use – common assault.

TIM COLLINS: Well, history must judge whether the motivation of going to war was in the interests of the international community and the Iraqi people or if it was to allow some form of anger to be vented… a decision that was taken with the result that the regime in Washington was looking around for some justification for the war. And weapons of mass destruction was held up as that fig leaf.

JOHN HUMPHRYS: People may be a little dismayed hearing you of all people talking like this, because what we remember of you, clearly, is you standing there before the battle and making that very, very inspirational speech to your soldiers. They'll be a bit dismayed at you saying this sort of thing at this stage.

TIM COLLINS: Well, I think that the whole international community is dismayed at the results of the war and the situation in Iraq. Iraqis are dying in their tens and hundreds on a weekly basis, and that's regrettable. And regrettably also, young servicemen from the United States, from the UK, and from our allies, are dying there too.

JOHN HUMPHRYS: Does that mean that in a sense you regret the speech that you made before the war?

TIM COLLINS: Not in the least. I stand by every word of it. That was my sentiment and hope at the time

JOHN HUMPHRYS: But does it have a hollow ring now?

TIM COLLINS: No, I would say that it was still the right thing to do to liberate the Iraqi people, the oppression was lifted. I do regret that no proper arrangements were made for the aftermath of the liberation so that the Iraqi people could more quickly find themselves back on their feet and heading towards democracy.

JOHN HUMPHRYS: So you believe things are getting worse, not better?

TIM COLLINS: I think ultimately Iraq can be a stable place, but it needs a lot of help. I think that the international community needs to put its shoulder behind the assistance of Iraq to get back on its feet.

ELEANOR HALL: Former British army Colonel Tim Collins speaking to the BBC's John Humphrys.

Jim H
09-17-2004, 08:22 AM
Hey I found a memo behind my couch! The French beleived that Iraq had WMD's, but their relationship in arms & oil was more important. Well, it might be a forgery, but the gist of the story is right. The ends justify the means, don't they?

[ 09-17-2004, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Jim H ]

09-17-2004, 08:22 AM
the light is at the end of the tunnel ;)

09-17-2004, 08:27 AM

There is a time and place for rhetoric and comforting political illusions. Iraq is not that time and place. If anything, Iraq has provided shock therapy in illustrating the dangers of trying to impose ideology and theory on reality, the weaknesses of many key institutions, the limits to the so-called international community, and the sheer scale and complexity of nation building and security operations. In Washington, “optimist” is almost always a synonym for “jackass,” in a world where simple, quick, cheap and easy solutions are inevitably doomed to failure.