OT: Bush admits using bad intel in State of Union

[Merryprankster]

Well, there you have it. He deliberately lied or his immediate admin was grossly incompetent. Either way, let's hope there's a media frenzy. If there is any consistency in congress' sense of propriety (there isn't) then he'll be impeached (he won't).

Didn't even make front page news on Monday--nor did the follow-on (probes being called for-big deal) Where's the outrage?

Kerrey/Graham in 2004!!

[chen zhen]

That's old news for us "non-americans"...:rolleyes:

;)

But please show a link to a newspaper or something, so that we can have it prooved black on white.

[Merryprankster]

Fair enough.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/07/09072003071306.asp

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s897935.htm

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/189/wash/White_House_admits_error_in_St:.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-07-08-bush-state-of-union_x.htm

We've ALL known the Uranium claim was SUSPECT for quite some time. The question was "did we KNOW if it was false, or was it just 'unconfirmed'?" There continued to be burgeoning evidence that it was indeed bad data, but still nothing super-concrete (beyond a reasonable doubt, say). I realize that distinction may not mean much to some people, but it's terribly important to me, since I'm an analyst. I'm cautious about saying something like "Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat, idiot." I'm more inclined to write "Recent reports indicate Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat, idiot," because confirming that may be difficult. (Well, not in Rush's case).

That distinction means a LOT. I work with shades of gray w/respect to accuracy and credibility consistently, so actually KNOWING something is a big deal to me. (yes, I KNOW Rush is a big, fat, idiot.

Clearly, we've now officially gone beyond unconfirmed, suspect reporting into "Oh, yeah, I used reporting that was clearly incorrect. By the way, the former Charge d' Affairs in Iraq said it was WAY off and really just so improbable not even the Heart of Gold and Zaphod Beeblebrox could instigate it. My bad." Now the question is, liar or incompetent? Or both? For once, a dilemma that isn't false!

[chen zhen]

So, what is worse lying about: The reason for going to war with thousands of casualties & the destroying of a whole nation; or about getting B-jobs in the oval office...?



Hmmmm



...



Dayum, dats a tough nut to crack..:p;)

[Merryprankster]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3056626.stm

bbc link.

To me, the thing that nailed it was when the former charge d' affairs for Iraq came out and said it was bogus (saw the interview). For that guy to go on record... that's big. Sure, we had reports that that was most likely what happened (had been proven false after investigation) but this guy came out and SAID it. Wow.

[chen zhen]

What would make Iraq that important, that a President of the most powerful country in the world would stand up and downright lie to to the rest of the world..?

now let's see.. oil is too obvious, that has become a cliché.

ummm...

Can't think of anything else:D

Oh yeah, for strategic reasons, pinching Iran & Syria from 2 directions (the others being Afghanistan and Israel).

That's it..:cool:

[Merryprankster]

Oil really doesn't make sense. I know it's the popular reason but it doesn't make sense. We have greater interests in Oil in Nigeria and could have done something there, thanks to current unrest, under the guise of humanitarian aid, without getting the rest of the world ****ed at us, yet we went this route. I can think of several valid geoplotical reasons in a Realpolitik kind of way, as you suggested. But generally--I think Bush genuinely perceived (opinion vice fact) a threat--after all, Saddam tried to kill his father.

Chen Zhen--careful, we don't know if Bush lied yet. All we know is that he used bad information that HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN was bad. Again--either he lied or his immediate staff was inept here. One is an aspersion on his personal character (and thus his fitness for the job), the other is merely an aspersion on his and his admins fitness for the job. Jimmy Carter is an example--great man, lousy administrator.

[chen zhen]

Ok, sorry. I'll take it back. For now.

But think about it: What country would be easier to get oil from? Nigeria or Iraq? It would be odd if the US suddenly gained interest in doing funny-stuff with Nigeria, but the US has an old history with Iraq & Saddam, so it would make more sense by going there for oil. +, if the US government uses Nigeria or the Caspian sea as examples of "oh, we don't attack Iraq for the purpose of oil, because these-and-these countries have more oil, then why don't we attack them?", then it's a diversion. Because it would be more convenient to attack Saddam after 9/11 than some African country, or some unknown dictator in a former Soviet Union-republic. Right?

It's just my obsevation and opinion.

[Merryprankster]

I didn't say attack. Nigeria was/is having some SERIOUS ethnic unrest which got so bad they had to stop oil production in February (it has sense returned to production but the threat remains--sometimes violent--sporadic reports of attack on oil infrastructure, etc). ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, and several European oil conglomerates, including TotalElFina and a couple others, based in Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Spain have an incredible amount of people and money invested in Nigeria along with ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil.

Nigeria is a MAJOR contributor to the U.S. oil market and clearly to the European one as well. It is the 8th largest producer in the world. Light, sweet, crude dominates most of their production (it's easier to crack and refine=very high profit margin). It would have been much, much simpler to embark on a "U.N. Peacekeeping mission," largely U.S. funded and backed with what probably would have been enthusiastic European response rather than ****ing off most of the world with a war in Iraq.

If this were really about oil or profits therefrom, Bush could have simultaneously protected oil company interests and profits while looking like a nice guy instead of a warmonger.

[Laughing Cow]

MP.

Didn't GWB II choose and appoint his own advisers?

;)

[Merryprankster]

Of course--that's my point exactly and why I made a distinction between character issues and competency issues, as below:


the other is merely an aspersion on his and his admins fitness for the job.

Reading for comprehension....

[Daredevil]

Oil mail be one factor, yes, but it's probably not all.

I think you'd have to look closely at the current regime in USA to understand what's going on.

See the following website for what I think may be a clue:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Note the signatories!

A very interesting site and another one with more speculation can be found at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Later folks.

[chen zhen]

It would have been much, much simpler to embark on a "U.N. Peacekeeping mission," largely U.S. funded and backed with what probably would have been enthusiastic European response rather than ****ing off most of the world with a war in Iraq.

maybe it would, but if it was done right after 9/11, the American people would have questioned why the US government would suddenly focus on Nigeria, when not even Osama would have been captured yet. So it would still make more sense to attack Iraq, since A= the US has a past history with the country and Saddam, and B=it's an Arab country, because the hostility and suspicion towards Arabs/middle-easterners(not Israelis included) is very large in the US after 9/11, so it's easier to make an Arab (oil-rich) country the point of focus, leading to war.
Know what I mean?

And the rest of the world would make very great protests towards the US no matter what they will do now, (speaking of foreign-policy) since the trust in the US speaking the truth is VERY VERY low in the rest of the world.
That's the way it goes, ho's.:rolleyes:

[TigerJaw]

For what my oppinion is worth. The oil thing is more about controlling OPEC policy than a country with a lot of Oil in it. Iraq is always trying to get OPEC to produce less and push the price down. This is what sparked the first Gulf war, Kuwait wanted to produce more oil and Iraq didn't want them to. Kuwait did it anyway, some people say they were 'encouraged' to do so by the US, despite their OPEC agreements.

This is why i think it's more about Oil policy than the Oil in the country itself.

Point of Fact: Nigeria is in OPEC but has not been so much of a problem in terms of opposing US oil policy.

[GLW]

An interesting discussion happened on this area...

Turns out that there are two schools of thought about the amount of oil available in the world.

The current administration's official line is 50% usage of what the majority of scientific evidence claims...and they claim:

That roughly 50% of the oil that man will ever be able to remove from the ground for use has been recovered in the last 100 years. - There is only 50% of the total oil supply left in the entire world.

Given that the excalation of oil use has been in the last 50 or 60 years...coinciding with the use of fossil fuels for heating, transportation, and even electrical power, and that the demand has been escalating...

The estimates are that somewhere around 2050 or sooner, the world's oil supply will be depleted.

Now, the Bush admin maintains that these numbers are too low...but even then, the depletion would happen later than 2050..but not later than 2100...

The forecast is that things will start to get REALLY tight around 2020....and that there will be TWO countries in the world that will take on great signifcance around then or give or take 5 years...

Iraq and Saudi Arabia....

So, if that is true....one thing is that military might and economics - being heavily tied to transportation and power...fuels... will experience a signifcant set of issues regarding control and influence in those areas.

Alternative fuels...well they get lip service but large scale workable solutions are just not there and not even really on the horizon....so...is it not easier just to make sure NOW that you have strong influence in one if not two of the projected areas of importance in 15 or 20 years....

It is about CONTROL of oil and power...A military without oil...only things like nuclear powered ships would still work...what happens to a great air power - without fossil fuels...

[MasterKiller]

Bush's approval rating is the lowest since 9/11. Hopefully, Americans will smarten up an vote his @ss out of office next year.

[Chang Style Novice]

Kerry/Graham would be okay, but I'd prefer Dean/Clark.

PS - aspersion, not aspiration.

[Brad]

Well, there you have it. He deliberately lied or his immediate admin was grossly incompetent. Either way, let's hope there's a media frenzy. If there is any consistency in congress' sense of propriety (there isn't) then he'll be impeached (he won't).
I don't think there's any grounds for impeachment since there's no evidence saying Bush forged the documents. Basically, it's just incompetence, and being an idiot isn't a crime ;) Hopefully there will be some sort of serious investigation though.

[Liokault]

I don't think there's any grounds for impeachment since there's no evidence saying Bush forged the documents.

Wouldnt it depend on if bush knew that the documents were forged at the time?

[Merryprankster]

CSN,

LOL at my own stupidity! You are, of course, correct. I will edit.

Liokault--yes--if he lied, vice just being not right due to bad work, then he should be impeached--and that was what I was thinking of when I wrote it. Should have been more specific.

[Chang Style Novice]

Hey, no big deal, I'm just a goon about these things, and you were probably pretty tired when you wrote that so I can easily forgive the error. Glad you decided to support Dean.

What?

Really?

Well, I'm glad you know the difference between aspersions and aspirations then.;)

[Merryprankster]

Dean may have better ideas, but Kerry/Graham is unassailable on "patriotism," "war stuff," and the "War on terrorism."

Kerry brings the Military credentials and Graham has been an outspoken critic of the War on Terrorism--thinks we are mis-focused and not doing enough.

[Chang Style Novice]

That's why I say Wesley Clark for VP. Plus Clark's a southerner. And Kerry's got a face made for radio, too. I'm convinced Dukakis and Mondale lost largely 'cause of those mugs of theirs.

[MasterKiller]

I heard Gen. Tommy Franks may run. Whaddaya think about him?

[Chang Style Novice]

As a democrat? Really? Wow. I haven't read about his politics at all, so I have nothing to say to that. But as a name in the news, he'd probably have a better chance than Clark, who's still a little obscure despite all his newsprogram commentary appearances.

[Radhnoti]

Here's the problem I think the democrats are facing. I have yet to hear an idea/approach/plan from them, that isn't the same ol' thing of increasing government size. That doesn't work, and I think almost everyone has figured that out now.
And I'm not saying that they don't HAVE any ideas, simply that I've not heard any. The only thing I ever catch them saying is how bad Bush is doing, and why he's doing everything wrong. Where's the message? Is there a candidate with some sort of goal he wants to push that'll improve our country?

I've been TOTALLY out of the political loop for a few weeks, so I'm going to assume that MP is representing things properly and make a quick (slightly related due to chen zhen) comment.
No one wanted to impeach Carter for getting bad advice or being a bad administrator...at least no one I heard of back then.
Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton for lying under oath...a crime for which we NORMAL citizens would be granted jail time. They put a harsh penalty on lying under oath, because people telling the truth in court is so important to the way our justice system operates. There are people in jail right now for lying under oath...and they should be there. And, in my opinion, so should he. It's not right that the rich and powerful operate under a different set of laws from the typical citizen...everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. His flaunting of the law is a slap in the face, in my opinion, to every citizen who has NO CHOICE but to live within the dictates of our laws.

I'm certain that many instances exist of Republican power-brokers doing the same thing...and I'm deeply opposed to that as well. Bring it to my attention and I'll b-itch and moan about them as well. :D

[Budokan]

Shrub didn't lie. He simply parroted what everyone (Cheyney, Wolfowitz, Libbey, etc) told him to. He's their figurehead and the sooner everyone admits that and quits living in Pollyanaville the better off -- and the sooner -- he'll be out of office.

And anyway, so what if he did lie? Gee, imagine that. A politician lying. Especially one who comes across and promised to be a "straight-shooter". :rolleyes:

That's why these nuts keep getting elected. Or selected, whatever the case may be. They bank on the fact that the majority of the American people are a bunch of ill-informed slack-jawed troglodytes who only have the attention span of a "sound bite".

People get the type of government they deserve. Period.

[Mutant]

Thanks for the links Prankster, I missed that news story (and I even read most of boston.com yesterday).

The New Yorker had a good expose' on Bush's cabinets mode of operations a few weeks back, and Newsweek had a decent, but not nearly as detailed article recently. The BBC seems to get the facts out there, but its appalling how most of the media lets these things 'slip'. All that and now the FCC is deregulating and allowing massive consolidation of media outlets and it will be even harder for people to discern whats going on. What I have learned is downright horrific and its not just some 'liberal' drama, but facts:

Bush's neoconservative think tank deliberately circumvented other branches of government intelligence gathering and fabricated a veil of lies that were applied in PR blitz, timed to play on peoples fears. Now many of the facts are surfacing, but being downplayed by a conservative media (liberal media is now a myth in this country in all but a few cases).

Bush's think tank and most of his cabinet are proponents of the political theories of Leo Strauss, who had some radical ideas, bordering fascism. He believed that the populace was ignorant and advocated manipulating and distorting information that would be disseminated to the public and control their opinions, for their own good, of course...and you can see those Straussian theories being applied by the Bush adminastration...Strange and scary that you never hear about that in the mainstream media and much of America is entirely unaware of this.

Congress wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about a freakin blow-job (not that that was permissable) but turns a blind eye towards lies that kill thousands and undermine global democracy. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Dean is interesting, Kerry is more probable...

[Laughing Cow]

Rumsfeldt:

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."

Article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20030709/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_iraq)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MutantWarrior
Bush's neoconservative think tank... Bush's think tank and most of his cabinet are proponents of the political theories of Leo Strauss, who had some radical ideas, bordering fascism.

You seem confused here. I assume you're referring to PNAC, which not only is not Bush's; nor does he belong to it - in fact, they're directly (and publically) opposed on a wide variety of key issues. In fact, they have criticisms of Bush's policies published on their webpage; and Clinton (specifically, and Democrats in general) was explicitly more cooperative with their policies. In fact yet again, vastly more neoconservatives came from the Democratic party than Republican.

You're simply painting with too broad a brush here; the world is reasonably more complex than you seem to be giving it credit.

You also seem to be missing the important point: the "fascist" aspects of neoconservative thought that you find disfavorable are all more commonly known as "socialism."

If indeed you find these things disfavorable, you should realize that the only viable political movement that doesn't include them as foundational beliefs are legitimate conservatives, of which Bush is one.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
So, what is worse lying about: The reason for going to war with thousands of casualties & the destroying of a whole nation; or about getting B-jobs in the oval office...?

Whatever you do, please don't use this line of argument. The war and Bush's conduct are two different things which should each stand or fall on their own merit. This line of manipulation is the same one used by the government with the idea of creating an intractable connection between support for the war, and support for your country. It's an "all or nothing, us against them" kind of viewpoint which attempts to use people's emotional responses on one issue to control their opinions on another one. Surely this is repugnant?

[chen zhen]

Sorry. I realised it would bring me down at some point.:(

:rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by chen zhen
What would make Iraq that important, that a President of the most powerful country in the world would stand up and downright lie to to the rest of the world..?

In what way is "to end the Baathist regime" an unreasonable answer to the question of "why military intervention in Iraq"? From Bush's POV, I mean.

[Marky]

I have no love for Bush, but if a Democrat gets in office in '04, I won't be able to stay in the country. I make $75,000 a year, and according to the Democrats, that makes me one of the "rich Americans" who should pay more taxes than anyone else.

But I might be turned around about the whole thing if a Democrat actually presents a policy other than "I don't like Bush".

As far as the State of the Union Address, I DOUBT Bush would have lied because he would have too much to lose. And there would be NO WAY to constrict the knowledge that he lied to those who like Bush. If even one person knew (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that Bush lied, it would be crucifixion time at that person's discretion.

But then again, Bush is a politician, and by the very definition of the word, he would lie if he thought he could get away with it. Actually, with $15 billion going directly to corrupt African governments (although I know it's being spent with good intentions, I doubt a single deserving person will see a piece of that dough), I'm starting to wonder if he lied about being a Republican!

[norther practitioner]

The Democrats (I'm slightly left of center) have stuck there dam foots in there mouths so many times in the last two and a half years it is discusting.... I don't like the republicans too much right now either but that is a different story. I haven't seen anything too impressive as of yet for the 2004 race.

[African Tiger]

Still waiting for the new and improved KFO, where political posts are moved to another forum entirely...:rolleyes:

[Vapour]

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/09/Rumsfeld_Iraq030709

Oh well, go figure.

[Vash]

**** the Republicans. **** the Democrats. in fact, why not just **** all the ****ing independents, too.

Were I king of This Great Nation (like I should be), then I would scrap this crap, call us the Big Brother Network, and bomb every ****ing country that looked at us cross-eyed.

Oh, I'm tired of politics. I think I've read one too many articles with Rumsfeld's amazingly poetic butchery of the American language ('cuz there ain't no way in heck that's English).

[Merryprankster]

African Tiger has caught the Anal Retentive!

Actually, I've been saying we need an OT forum for awhile.

[chen zhen]

Why don't you Americans just found some more parties! U might as well be a one-party state right now, cos' you're screwed whatever u vote.

More parties, man! And not sum "green party", or the "nazi-party"(those are the other ones u have?)

U should learn from european countries. (preferably western, not eastern:rolleyes: )

[Merryprankster]

And you should learn that social democracy is not sustainable ;)

Anyway, the two-party system has evolved because of the way votes are tallied and the division between the executive and legislative branches. There has rarely been a viable 3rd party in U.S. history.

Chen Zhen, there are significant differences between the Democrat and Republican parties--on the whole. Mileage may vary from candidate to candidate.

[chen zhen]

U have to change your voting-system, it's one of the most f*cked in the world (except for Iraq, lol).

And the candidates of both parties are bound by those they have loaned campaign-money from, so they have to follow a policy that those contributors to a certain extent chooses. How f*cked is that?

& I can go on and on. The fall of the Social Democratic parties in many european countries, is partly because of immigrant-problems, that have made the voters turn more to the right. And it has screwed a lot of things up. I talk mostly on the behalf of Denmark, but others have problems too, Berlusconi being a good example.

[Merryprankster]

Chen Zhen:

Why is our voting system f-ed up?

Why is, say, Germany or Denmark's way any better?

I'm not big on unsubstantiated claims. Tell me why. I mean, you could be right, but I'd like to know why you think you're right.

I will agree that it would be nice if we could eliminate the money issue, but campaign donations are protected under political free speech--a basic tenet philosophy in our system and one that is unlikely to go away.

"Immigrant Problems?" I thought Europe was so much more tolerant than the U.S.? Guess those Belgian protests/riots some months ago say otherwise, eh? :D

[Chang Style Novice]

MP - Well, for one thing, proportional representation would have prevented the huge redistricting battle currently going on here in Texas! I also am of the opinion that P.R. and the attendant plethora of viable parties would mean the views of the populace are better represented in the legislatures.

[chen zhen]

MP: actually, I can't say why. i'll take my statement back...:o ;)

Racism and populist parties are gaining in population in Europe. Especially in France, Holland, Denmark (not yay) and England. It is really f*cked up. Denmark is a small country, so the racism bubbles up to the surface when just small problems arises (we just like to be ourselves, without interference, apparently), there's only 3-5% immigrants, approximally 300-400.000, while France has 12.000.000 (out of a pop. on 50.000.000) or more immigrants, and criminality is much worse in urban areas there. Le Pen gained more votes at the last election, if u heard (or does the ignorant americans don't know that either?:p)

[Chang Style Novice]

God, it pains me to hear racist and populist parties mentioned as if equivalent. True populism doesn't have anything to do with the isolationist nationalist type cr@p that's unfortunately gaining favor these days...

[chen zhen]

Well, it is in Europe. So bear with it.:rolleyes:

[TonyM.]

This thread is very similar to the old "Remember the Maine" thing isn't it?;)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
True populism doesn't have anything to do with the isolationist nationalist type cr@p that's unfortunately gaining favor these days...

Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Especially by "isolationist nationalist"? Just curious; thanks. :)

[Chang Style Novice]

Le Pen and NF and so forth with anti-immigrant stuff, closed border talk, that sort of thing. (Not TOO elaborate, I trust!:p )

[chen zhen]

Where do u draw the line between these 2 things, then?
(which are one!)

[Chang Style Novice]

They're not precisely the same. Anti-immigrant stuff could be refusing citizenship or the right to work etc. to long term foreign residents without actually deporting them.

[chen zhen]

The anti-immigration parties in europe connects the immigrants' background as the base of their refusing citizenship, preferably muslims from many different countries. That's why the populist parties are called racist, because they differentiate between some immigrants from others.

[Christopher M]

Gotcha; thanks. :)

[Chang Style Novice]

See, to me 'real' populism means the labor-movement strain of leftism originating in the NW of the USA in the late 1800s early 1900s.

[chen zhen]

Yeah, but that does'nt count the way the term populism is used in the rest of the world, does it?;)

[Chang Style Novice]

True enough. In any case

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!

[chen zhen]

heh, ol' Il Duce strung up. That was done by the people itself, as it always should be.:(
Sadly, that is not the case.

[Souljah]

im sad i missed this thread to contribute through it, its very big news that was downplayed as usual.....I will have to read back and catch up.

BTW, Have any of you read any essays from a man named John Pilger? He also has a few books out right now.....really good stuff, quite hateful, but in my view quite rightly so.
Off to Palenque now.

-greg

[chen zhen]

He has made tv-documentaries. Interesting stuff.