Thomas the Rhymer - 23 Mar 04 - 10:40 AM

"Ten days in, it was all about Iraq'.

Damn sight earlier than that ttr, Clinton 1998 - Agenda "Regime Change in Iraq"

GUEST 23 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM
What the Bush administration told them (the American public and the world at large) was that A FUTURE attack, by international terrorist groups, similar, or more dangerous, in nature to those of 9/11 was "possible, even probable" if backed by regimes prepared to furnish such groups with WMD, or WMD technology. A Senate Security Committee identified the Ba'athist regime in Iraq as one of the most likely candidates to fulfil that role.

The reason why all the major media keeps publishing these stories is simple - it sells.

Where is your "information"? Where are your "facts"? So far, from what you, and others, have put up as fact amounts to opinions and suppositions based on 20 x 20 hindsight - i.e. not facts at all.

The Bush and Blair administrations evaluated what intelligence data they had in order to establish what sort of threat existed, or could potentially exist in the case of nothing being done (favoured UN course of action) with regard to Iraq. Far from being wrong, the Bush and Blair administrations, were correct in their reading of the situation and their actions were correct.

GUEST 23 Mar 04 - 11:40 AM
"New information", "facts that emerge later" - As stated above you have offered neither.

By the bye, in the Gilligan/BBC v Blair Government case which you refer to as the "infamous case in Britain over the BBC & WMD constroversy" - The BBC and Gilligan were found to have been at fault.

Bobert - 23 Mar 04 - 01:32 PM
As poor as ever on fact and detail Bobert.

The "recent reports" are all recently reported opinions, nothing more. There have been no recent "discoveries" at all. And what Scott McClelland has said apparently has been analysed by Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times and guess what Bobert, Mr. Miller has come down to the conclusion that what Mr. McClelland has been saying is "factually correct" - but like I've said many times before your credo seems to be, "Facts I don' need no steenkin' facts".

Liked this bit Bobert -
"Lets go back to before the invasion of Iraq. What was going on? Were folks just standing around supporting an invasion? Well, heck no they weren't." Again not too good on facts Bobert - Heck yeah they were.

The "Millions took to the streets in cities across the US and in hundreds of cities around the world." Did they constitute a majority of the populations of the US and the world Bobert? - you suggest so, but both you and I know that that was not the case.

GUEST,pdc - 23 Mar 04 - 01:37 PM

Let's have a look at Krugman's, "bits of evidence" - that weren't

1. "From the day it took office, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government."

Opinion - not "evidence" - I take it that the federal governments business in the previous administration was completely open and transparent - Is that what Mr. Krugman is trying to say? - if so I don't buy it.

2. After 9/11 - "Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

Sounds pretty logical and sensible thing to do - what would Mr. Krugman rather have had Ari Fleischer say?

3. -snip 1 - Purely Mr. Clarke's opinion.

4. -snip 2 - Bush officials have not attacked Mr. Clarke's character. They have pointed out a number of significant inconsistencies in both Mr. Clarke's actions and statements. There is no independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges, there is only opinion.

5. Prior to 9/11, terrorism within the US, has never been a priority, regardless of which administration was in power.   

6. Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? It most certainly did not. The FBI thing is a red-herring, post-9/11 the counter-terrorist policy adopted called for a complete revamp in order to streamline the flow of information between intelligence agancies. The present administration did spend more on counter-terrorist post 9/11, that is a fact. The UK went through the same thing in eliminating "turf" wars involving MI6; MI5; Special Branch and the Anti-terrorist Squad.

7. Regarding, "the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets."

Really, you mentioned nuclear sites and ports. With regard to the latter, take a look at the recent IMO ISPS code - Not just the USA but world-wide. If G. W. Bush did flatly refuse to do anything about it, that flat refusal is having a pretty funny way of manifesting itself. All ports and vessels of 500 dwt engaged in international trade have to comply with this code by July this year.

8. "Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did."

Another red-herring. Pure observation on my part, but what did the administration do? Ignore what some wanted to do, what did the administration do? They went after the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - DIDN'T THEY.

McGrath of Harlow - 23 Mar 04 - 02:00 PM

I liked the Blake quote.