 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Strick Date: 27 Mar 04 - 10:55 PM Results of the latest Newsweek poll released earlier today (3/27) for people who've been following the 9/11 Commission hearings: Although exactly half of the American public has paid at least some attention to Clarke's allegations, only a quarter of those who have been following the story say they see Clarke as a selfless public servant. Fifty percent suspect Clarke has some personal or political agenda, while another 25 percent don't know what to make of his accusations. By a margin of 61 percent to 34 percent, Americans feel that, overall, the Bush administration has taken the terror threat seriously. The numbers are the reverse for Bush's predecessor: 65 percent are critical of how seriously they believe the Clinton administration took the threat. I thought this was interesting because of what it says about Nader's candidacy: Bush's overall approval rating remain statistically unchanged at 49 percent and in a three-way hypothetical election between Bush, Kerry and independent candidate Ralph Nader, the results were the same as in last week's NEWSWEEK poll: 45 percent for Bush, 43 percent for Kerry and 5 percent for Nader. If Nader is removed from the picture, the race remains a statistical tie, with 48 percent for Kerry, 47 percent for Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 28 Mar 04 - 12:11 AM It's established that Clarke felt he was demoted. It's not established that he's making up lies to get even. I got effectively demoted once myself, when my unit was eliminated by the university I worked for, but I didn't find it necessary to invent stories to discredit the administration. I thought the facts were good enough. (Wrong again, of course.) clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 28 Mar 04 - 01:12 AM "The fact that Clarke read into the record that he voted for Republicans impresses you?" no it doesn't impress me at all. i was merely pointing out the difference between a fact (something he stated while UNDER OATH meaning it must be true otherwise he is criminally liable) and character assassination (statements of conjecture on his motives with no basis in fact). "Tenet rather than Clarke was briefing Bush directly. This is the primariy basis for arguing that the Bush administration too terrorism less seriously than Clintons? That the President got his briefings from the head of the CIA instead of a staffer? You don't think that's a potential motivating factor for a man of Clarke's obvious pride?" i don't believe any statement from clarke says that his "demotion" is the basis for his statement that the bush admin. felt the terror threat to be less urgent. this seems to be a conclusion that you have reached and are now stating as if it were a fact. do you have any quotes to this effect from clarke's testimony? the fact that he considered his position to have changed doesn't justify your conclusion. nor does your personal judgement on his pridefulness. "I'll grant you that the "information" that Clarke was passed over for promotion came from the White House." exactly. so how much is that "information", as you term it, worth as far as factual information that is offered under risk of perjury? concerning your poll information, i'd be curious how the questions were phrased and i don't think the true effect of this testimony has sunk in yet. i don't think it will be as easy to flush this down the memory hole as some of the other bushslime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 28 Mar 04 - 01:57 AM i tried to make a link here to a time magazine article with many facts pertinent to our discussion of dr. rice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Strick Date: 28 Mar 04 - 08:01 AM "do you have any quotes to this effect from clarke's testimony? the fact that he considered his position to have changed doesn't justify your conclusion. nor does your personal judgement on his pridefulness." Conclusion? I'm just examining the man's potential motives. Money and the knowledge that hell hath no fury like a bureacrat deprived of the symbol of his status are powerful considerations. The comment on his pride comes from people, many who support him, who've worked with him over the years. Not under oath, of course, but something to consider none the less. In truth, in my company, in most of business, no one is ever demoted. If an issue is serious enough to warrant a demotion, they're fired instead. Demotion stirs too much resentment and rarely turns out well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST Date: 28 Mar 04 - 12:07 PM "Conclusion? I'm just examining the man's potential motives..." i'll throw this into the examination of potential motives. perhaps he is a person who has served his country and 3 presidential administrations and thru that period followed the whole development of al-quada terrorism as closely or more closely than anyone in the business. he may have a real sense of the true danger we face and has seen our defense bungled by a bunch of ideologically impaired cold war hacks. disaster happens on their watch (9/11) and he feels that this group failed to do everything they could have to protect this country and also started a war that has no meaning in terms of stopping the terrorist threat that he has worked against for so long. then he leaves the administration after doing what he could on the inside to address the threat and then feels a duty to tell the american people just what kind of trouble they're really in. in other words, a truly patriotic act. or maybe he's just a washed-up beaurocrat pissed about his demotion who wants to sell a few books. jeez, it seems like a guy like that might not want to risk it all and testify for 15 hours in closed session, 6 hours of congressional hearings, publicly UNDER OATH which makes him liable for perjury charges if the bush admin can prove anything he said was untrue, but then again i guess he could be so petty and prideful that he'd go for that. i don't know him personally so anything i say about his motives is speculation. "In truth, in my company, in most of business, no one is ever demoted. If an issue is serious enough to warrant a demotion, they're fired instead. Demotion stirs too much resentment and rarely turns out well." if this is true i guess it shows that the bush admin is not only venal and slimy but stupid and incompetant as well. i don't believe they fired clarke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 28 Mar 04 - 12:08 PM ooops iforgot to put my moniker on the last post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 28 Mar 04 - 02:09 PM "Let's declassify all of it," Clarke said on NBC's "Meet the Press." latest statement from the "disgruntled beaurocrat". he's suggesting declassifying not only his testimony at the congressional hearings but all the testimony from there and the 9/11 hearings. does this sound like a guy afraid of the truth? do you think he's "grandstanding" knowing the bush admin will never do that? personally, i think he knows he told the truth as he saw it. and his accusers are throwing everything at the wall and praying for something to stick. but as long as they won't testfy UNDER OATH under penalty of criminal liability, i don't see any reason to accept their word over his no matter what his imagined "motives". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Nigel Parsons Date: 28 Mar 04 - 03:26 PM So, back to the music: Condoleeza, Condoleeza, men have framed you! (Mona Lisa) Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Johnny in OKC Date: 28 Mar 04 - 09:41 PM Tonight on 60 Minutes, Rice: "There's NOTHING that I would like MORE than to testify before the Senate ..." (Yeah, right) "... but it's a matter of PRICIPLE! No SITTING National Security Advisor has ever done so." (That's a precedent, not a principle.) Love, JOHNNY in OKC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 28 Mar 04 - 10:25 PM just saw dr. rice on 60 minutes. i can see why she doesn't want to testify. she didn't issue one straight answer in the entire interview. her question dodging on the issue of clarke's apology was especially egregious. how do these people sleep? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:51 AM a quote from clarke's appearece today on meet the press about declassifying all of his testimony and the memos that he sent dr. rice... "Now, Dr. Rice has characterized this as not a plan, not a strategy, not a series of decisions which could be made right away, but warmed-over Clinton material. Let's declassify that memo I sent on January 25th and let's declassify the national security directive that Dr. Rice's committee approved nine months later on September 4th, and let's see if there's any difference between those two, because there isn't. And what we'll see when we declassify what they were given on January 25th and what they finally agreed to on September 4th, is that they're basically the same thing and they wasted months when we could have had some action." no wonder the woman doesn't want to face a lawyer like ben-veniste UNDER OATH. the full transcript of clarke's interview is at MSNBC. if you can read that and still say that he's not telling the truth then you'll have to back it up with more than character assassination about his possible "motives". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Teribus Date: 29 Mar 04 - 04:15 AM From what has been said here re: Clarke, I take it that everybody would have been happy had the US started bombing Afghanistan in February 2001, even happier if they had started three months before that - that is what Clarke proposed they do. Clarke stated that in HIS OPINION, the Clinton administration regarded the international terrorist threat, as posed by Al-Qaeda, as "urgent", while the new administration of George W. Bush regarded it as "important". Can anybody see any reason for that view being taken? After all, the people who were looking after this in detail all remained in place, business proceeded as before - could it possibly be that those senior members of the Bush administration were satisfied that those people continued to have a handle on the problem and were quite satisfied with their efforts. Clarke proposed the bombing of Afghanistan, providing armed support of the Northern Alliance and putting US Special Forces into Afghanistan ("boots on the ground"). Berger, Clarke's superior in the Clinton administration, clearly stated that none of those were possible, for reasons that are blatantly obvious (at least they are to me). Change of administration, so Clarke once again tries to introduce his proposals, which are turned down for exactly the same reasons as before - Sorry Richard, this just simply cannot be done. As both Berger and Tenet said during their testimony, 9/11 made it possible to implement Clarke's proposals. What Clarke has said regarding the present administration's attitude to the terrorist threat during the period January 2001 to 11th September 2001, does not amount to statements being made here that the Bush administration put it on the "back burner", at least that is not my reading of the difference between "urgent" and "important". That distinction made by Clarke does ONLY represent his OPINION, it does not constitute fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 29 Mar 04 - 05:29 AM "From what has been said here re: Clarke, I take it that everybody would have been happy had the US started bombing Afghanistan in February 2001, even happier if they had started three months before that - that is what Clarke proposed they do." What I wrote on the 27th at 1:52 was "I don't necessarily agree with his opinions, but I don't think he's fudging the facts. And I've heard similar stories from other sources of Bush's tendency to demand that facts support his stand - political or scientific -instead of basing his stand on the facts." That probably should have said "facts that support his stand" but I think you can get my meaning And please read my earlier post on the 27th at 12:10 AM. And please don't put words in my mouth. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,petr Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM Teribus, I see you conveniently ignored my question on AQ KHan, and why there wasnt a peep from the BUsh administration on the nuclear black market. as far as Im concerned the wake up call should have been the 93 bombing of the World Trade Centre. At the time experts said that if the van had been in another location it could have brought down the tower and you would have had a lot more than 6 dead. (when the mastermind - Ramzi Yousef was caught, it came to light that he had planned to blow up at least a dozen airliners over the pacific) Imagine how many people would want to fly the next day. and of course other wake up calls would have been the East African embassy bombings, bombing of the Khobar towers in Saudi, the USS Cole, the attempted millennium bombing. the columnist Judith Miller wrote that top people in the CIA and Pentagon couldnt sleep that summer as they were expecting another attack especially around 4th July 2001. and Condoleeza's comment that no once could have predicted using airliners as missiles - is incorrect anyway, a terrorism expert from Vancouver wrote an article months before about such a possibility (the CIA even investigated him after 911) and a similar incident had happened before when an Algerian airliner was hijacked and the hijackers threatened to crash it into the Eiffel tower (in 95), in the end the plane was stormed on the tarmac by French special forces. an ominous sign of things to come is reports of ships being hijacked in the south pacific - whereby the hijackers quickly leave, making it look like a practice run. (I remember reading about a pentagon terrorism think tank in the late 70s that comes up with scenarios and simulates what might happen - one of their simulations was a hijacked oil tanker in New York harbour - with 3/4 of the oil dumped thereby turning it into a huge bomb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: DougR Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM It seems to be as I supposed it would be. Were Condleeza Rice to testify under oath before the committee, the majority of you folks wouldn't believe her if she refuted Richard Clarke's testimony. So why testify? I have heard on numerous TV talk shows (including even CNN) that any member of the Administration that presents testimony before a Congressional committee MUST tell the truth whether or not they are under oath. That does not seem to faze any of the naysayers in this community however. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Bobert Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:48 PM well, dougie, what seems to be the problem here with oaths... if the gal is telling the truth then fine. heck, she don't mind running her mouth on every damged tv show she can get on... and as fir precidence consider this. 9/11. no precidence there to speak of either. she has not only a resposibility but a duty to testify under oath to the commission... bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:51 PM If she "must" tell the truth, then what difference is telling it under oath going to make? The only difference I know of is that if she is found to be speaking falsely she is subject tocharges of perjury only if under oath. So I don't know where the "must" comes from or what it really means. Doug? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: DougR Date: 29 Mar 04 - 02:10 PM Amos: I heard former White House Counsel, Lanny Davis, (Clinton administration)and the former Deputy Attorney General in the first Bush administration being questioned by Wolf Blitzer on CNN this morning. It was the former Deputy Attorney General who made the statement that any member of the administration presenting testimony MUST tell the truth. Both Lanny Davis and former Deputy Attorney General agreed that the separation of powers is an important issue. Davis thought the question was too important to today's events to allow that principle to get in the way of Condi Rice testifying. The DAG did not agree with Lanny. So what I wrote was not something that I "thought up," I was merely reporting what those who are much more knowledgable than I said. AS to the difference between testifying under oath or simply testifying, I would assume you are right. But it is conceivable, I believe, that if one was found to have lied, not under oath, they could still be prosecuted. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,Jaze Date: 29 Mar 04 - 03:20 PM She claims no sitting national security adviser has had to testify before CONGRESS--the 9/11 Comittee is NOT Congress! W |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Barry Finn Date: 29 Mar 04 - 03:43 PM When she raises her right hand & is asked "Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God". She's taken an oath & can be charged with the crime of perjury if she's found to be lying. If not under oath she legally is not bound by law to tell the truth. Though it would cause a big scandle. To my way of thinking it's no different than standing in front of your board members, the stock holders & the employees to report on the issues at hand & telling them all to bugger off, that I don't have to tell anyone here anything & if I do it won't be under oath & there's nothing you can do about. Well, the same stock holders, board members & the employees would fire her sorry ass in a New York second. If she was following instructions from her CEO, fire them both. If they're found to be involved in illegal activities haul them off to court where they'd have to take an oath under the threat of perjury. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 29 Mar 04 - 03:53 PM "That distinction made by Clarke does ONLY represent his OPINION, it does not constitute fact." true. it is his stated opinion and since he headed the counterterrorism policy for the duration of al-quada's development it should get some weight. but it doesn't mean he's incontravertably correct. we need to hear the conflicting opinions testified to UNDER OATH placing the opinion-holder under penalty of law if he/she is lying or manipulating facts for political gain. but if the documents that he presented to rice in january are indeed the same as the national security directive rice signed in september as the bush plan to counter terrorism, would you agree with clarke that that would prove that even tho the bush admin. was offered the same plan in january nothing was done for 8 months? of course, we can't know these facts for sure unless the materials are declassified and dr. rice agrees to testify UNDER OATH to her part in this scenario. "...at least that is not my reading of the difference between "urgent" and "important." bush's own words in the book "bush at war" are that he felt no "sense of urgency" about pursuing bin laden. i'd say the differences between urgent (we've got to get on this RIGHT NOW) and important (we're concerned about this and we'll get to it as soon as we can) are easy to see. "So why testify?" because the american people and the families of 9/11 victims have a right to know the truth about how their elected officials handled what GWB calls their "most important duty", protecting american citizens. there are conflicts in this testimony that she may be able to resolve. to not do so is unpatriotic, cowardly, and disingenuous. the separation of powers ploy is a legalistic charade to avoid her responsibilities as a part of the government agencies that handled this duty. and for GWB to refuse to allow her testimony just reinforces the perception to those americans that are not "true believers" that he's got something to hide. if there is nothing, we need to know it. if there is something to hide we've got to know what that is. "I have heard on numerous TV talk shows (including even CNN) that any member of the Administration that presents testimony before a Congressional committee MUST tell the truth whether or not they are under oath. That does not seem to faze any of the naysayers in this community however." let's exercise a tiny bit of critical thinking here, even if it hurts our little brains. 1.) things you hear on TV talk shows are not necessarily true. they are not obligated by any authority to provide truth and may even be infected by "liberal bias" or be part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy". 2.) if one does not testify UNDER OATH one cannot be prosecuted for perjury. the charge of perjury means "lying while under oath". a president or senior offical might fire a staffer who he thinks lied while not under oath but cannot prosecute him/her under the law. that's a big difference when you're trying to get the truth out. 3.) why does this not faze "naysayers"? because it's such an obvious load of horsepucky to anyone who knows or cares anything about the law, beaurocratic procedure or the need to be sure about what really happened on a day that "changed everything". "So what I wrote was not something that I "thought up," I was merely reporting what those who are much more knowledgable than I said. AS to the difference between testifying under oath or simply testifying, I would assume you are right. But it is conceivable, I believe, that if one was found to have lied, not under oath, they could still be prosecuted." while i'm sure there are people much more knowledgeble about things than you, dougR, and myself, we are still responsible as americans to do some critical thinking and research and educate ourselves as well as we can to make informed decisions to preserve and strengthen our democracy or someday we will surely lose it. how can a person be found to have lied about testimony and be prosecuted if they have not sworn to tell the truth? tho you say you can concieve of this, do you have any evidence of this happening, any knowledge of law or systems that could bring such a charge in absence of sworn testimony, or any basis for this idea besides you thinking "well, surely this could happen"? by the way, dougR, still waiting for a reply to my question about specific bush lies over on the "popular views of the bush admin." thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 Mar 04 - 04:28 PM "Why should she testify under oath? You wouldn't believe her anyway" sounded familiar to me, then I realized that just the other day, my six year old said "why should I tell you, you won't believe me anyway." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,petr Date: 29 Mar 04 - 05:00 PM its also not illegal to knowingly lie. (in the film "the corporation" two reporters who had been ordered to revise a damaging story on monsanto (mainly because Monsanto had part ownership in the media) - and refused to do it, were even offered bribes (in writing) to kill the story, were eventually fired. Won their case, and lost it on appeal - since the really didnt have whistlerblower status. The reason: its not illegal to knowingly write a false story in the US. (unless you are under oath). the dumbest thing they did was attack Clarkes credibility. Who has the real credibility problem Clarke or the Bush Administration? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:35 AM Sorry petr, Re: Dr. A. Q. Khan, I would tend to bet that there was a damn sight more than a peep came out of the Bush administration, and out of the IAEA (whose responsibility this really is) - the world at large would not hear about it, such is diplomacy. But one thing resulting from that particular incident is that the IAEA, now knows a great deal more about the "black-market" in this sort of technology. Undoubtedly there was a deal done, one can only imagine that those who interviewed Dr. Khan considered that the information he supplied them with was significant enough to allow him to make his confession and depart the scene. In allowing him to do so, they got information, an essential ally was spared a great deal of embarrassment, which allows the international effort against nuclear proliferation, and against Al-Qaeda, to proceed unhindered. "as far as Im concerned the wake up call should have been the 93 bombing of the World Trade Centre." Clarke covered this point quite well when he appeared in front of the 9/11 committee - At the time there was nothing to suggest this attack had anything to do with Al-Qaeda, IN HIS OPINION. With 20 x 20 hindsight you can make the statement "as far as I'm concerned..." - Did you think it was Al-Qaeda at the time (1993)? The incidents relating to the East African embassy bombings, claimed by Al-Qaeda, resulted in the Clinton administration lobbing cruise missiles, rather ineffectively, at targets in the Sudan and in Afghanistan. This only suceeded in making the US look weak and ineffectual and increased the standing of Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, according to the considered opinion of both Berger and Tenet. The USS Cole incident was covered extensively, before the 9/11 committee by Samuel Berger. Both he and George Tenet, explained that shortly after that attack a preliminary judgement that Al-Qaeda was responsible had been made. Richard Clarke's calls for immediate bombing of Afghanistan were rejected on the grounds of unfeasibility and ineffectiveness. The intelligence relating to an expected Al-Qaeda attack was evaluated by the intelligence agencies of the US. The bulk of evidence indicated that this strike would fall outside the USA. Only Richard Clarke was of the opinion that the attack would come in the US. No-one did predict that Al-Qaeda would use aircraft as weapons, Clarke, Tenet, Berger or Rice. Your reference to prior articles written by terrorism experts, would only come into play, if those articles had been studied/evaluated, and, if any credence had been put in them. On the shipping thing, this problem is currently being addressed in new IMO ISPS codes that come into effect on the 1st July this year. This code covers security of ports and all vessels over 500 dwt engaged in international trade. Ships do get hijacked in the Far East, mainly it is piracy. I do not know about the Pentagon think tank, but I do remember very early in the 70's, the Royal Navy were tasked with looking at this problem. The scenario you described (oil tanker 3/4 empty) is by no means the worst, believe me. The Royal Navy did at least three trials, that I am aware of, which simulated an attack launched from a hijacked merchant vessel. Of the three trials, the best the "terrorist controlled" ship managed to do was to get 12 miles off track - that was in the English Channel - busiest sea-way in the world. Shortly after 9/11, around the time of operations starting in Afghanistan, UK Catters might remember a cargo ship being boarded and searched in the English Channel - We are awake to this form of attack. Incidently, Spain's major contribution to the war on terror to date has been naval patrols in the western Mediterranean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Jim McCallan Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:48 AM "But it is conceivable, I believe, that if one was found to have lied...", one must have first gone through the process of being questioned on the matter, based on the same criteria whereby everyone else was questioned. Otherwise you just leave yourself wide open to criticism. If you can impeach a President over the definition of 'sexual relations', one should (theoretically) be able to create a precedent where the National Security Advisor would get her sweet little ass dragged up to account for itself. Considering that the precedent which created this present precedent, was none other than 9/11 itself. Let's have enough of 20/20 hindsight, already. What's wrong with a bit of good old plain ordinary 20/20? Were Al Gore in the White House now, and all this mess was around his ears, you would be the loudest voice shouting into it, DougR. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,Jim McCallan Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:30 AM Well, she's now allowed to testify.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: DougR Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:58 PM Well, Guest, you got your wish. She will now present testimony before the commission. How much you want to bet that after she does, you will not see messages posted here that she has not testified truthfully? As to your request that I reply to some questions posed on another thread, I will take a look at that thread, and when you have signed on with a real name, I'll take a stab a it. Deal? TIA: sounds a bit like you have a communication problem with your child. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:25 PM None whatsoever - she is of course a perfectly well adjusted genius (oxymoron?). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,petr Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:52 PM Teribus re:Re: Dr. A. Q. Khan, I would tend to bet that there was a damn sight more than a peep came out of the Bush administration, and out of the IAEA (whose responsibility this really is) - the world at large would not hear about it, such is diplomacy. But one thing resulting from that particular incident is that the IAEA, now knows a great deal more about the "black-market" in this sort of technology. Undoubtedly there was a deal done, one can only imagine that those who interviewed Dr. Khan considered that the information he supplied them with was significant enough to allow him to make his confession and depart the scene. In allowing him to do so, they got information, an essential ally was spared a great deal of embarrassment, which allows the international effort against nuclear proliferation, and against Al-Qaeda, to proceed unhindered. teribus, everything you say above are assumptions without the facts; "tend to bet there was more than a peep"? I dont recall any whitehouse spokesman saying anything - and in BUshs own words they regard the "nuclear proliferation along with the axis of evil (nkorea, iran.. )as the greatest threat to civilization." and our key ally has a renegade scientist who happily shares nuclear secrets with the enemy. Musharraf immediately pardoned him so there can be no investigation. "undoubtedly there was a deal done" really? I hope so, maybe it was just a little added pressure on the lawless tribal areas - keep the white house happy. dont forget AQ KHan also spent a lot of time in Afghanistan, although he claimed it was for setting up hospitals etc. and Musharrafs hanging by a thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 31 Mar 04 - 05:08 AM petr, Absolutely granted, what I have said regarding Dr. Khan is only assumption on my part, I think that was clear in my original post on the subject. I believe having read somewhere that it was documentation received from the Libyan disarmament programme that "blew the whistle" on the unoficial activities of A. Q. Khan. Let me ask you, do you believe that the US and IAEA, said and did nothing regarding those activities. You seem to be all too well prepared to believe that the current US administration "does deals" and engages in under-cover operations, whenever such activities can be construed in a negative light - but not when they may be for the good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,petr Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM teribus. now youre making assumptions again, how do you know what Im prepared to believe? I supported the U.S. action in Iraq, mainly for humanitarian reasons, although I thought threat of wmds was a possibility (given Saddams historical desire to get weapons) WMDS and the imminent threat to the west were the main public reasons for going to war in Iraq. Probably the real reasons for going in (that Ive found most plausible) is to attempt to setup a democracy as an example for other middle east countries - an admirable and gutsy move, but probably wildly optimistic if not an infantile fantasy, given the history of the region and the fact that democracy in the US probably took about 80 years to fully develop.) (BUt thats just my assumption) the real facts are that Bush talked about the AXIS OF EVIL and the WMD THREAT to the west, and yet heres AQ KHan the Nuclear Johnny Appleseed happily giving nuclear weapons technology to those very same countries (NKorea, Iran ) hes also known to have repeatedly visited Afghanistan and was friendly with the Taliban (originally setup by the Pakistani Secret Service) - he claimed that he was just setting up hospitals - how nice. Musharraf immediately pardoned him, 'to the chagrin of the CIA and western intelligence agencies' (Time Magazine) Given BUshs remark that youre either with us or against us, seems to me that Pakistan is BOTH. this story came to light in the past 2 months, and yet it came and went in the media (I dont recall any comment at all from the white house, Condi Rice, RUmsfeld etc. Do you?) HOW seriously are they taking this issue? after all its about WMDS did they not go to war over it in Iraq, even though it turns out they didnt exist. (and David Kay and his team have given up looking) the latest round with Richard Clarke is whether they took the ALqaeda threat seriously - and yet I havent heard anything on the nuclear black market - how seriously are they taking this? (we do know that OSama approached some Russians for Nukes - in the end they just ripped him off.) as far as Libya is concerned, looks like they had no intention of using the technology they got from Khan but rather handed it over to the West to get brownie points and improved relations - because it means a lot of trade money - of course its probably a coincidence that Libya has huge oil reserves and Royal Dutch shell immediately signed a big natural gas deal. (but thats just my opinion) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:48 AM Interesting article for you petr: http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper916.html Deals with Dr. A. Q. Khan's activities |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,petr Date: 01 Apr 04 - 01:05 PM thanks Teribus, interesting indeed. in answer to your earlier question, whether I believe the US or IAEA did or said anything regarding AQ KHANs activities. (Well I would certainly hope that the US did do something - although I wouldnt know since I dont recall any whitehouse statements at all) or for that matter I dont see much of this discussed in US media. BUt I think its a pretty serious issue, more than Alqaeda and I dont hear any thing about it on CNN. Backroom deals and clandestine activities often dont come out for years (if ever) I only base my judgement on past history. so for example the history of US dealings with Saddam in the past says a lot (they eagerly supplied him with arms and had no problems with him using chemical weapons as long as it was on Iranian troops, cause in those days he was 'our son of a bitch'. James Baker made it abundantly clear in 1990 that the US didnt care about Iraqs border dispute with Kuwait. The Kurds & Shia were used as a political football, encouraged to rise up against Saddam and abandoned. George Sr. let the US generals hammer out the deals with the Iraqis and by letting the fly armed helicopters allowed Saddam to stay in power. sure we know he had bio-weapons, because he GOT them from the US. (anthrax and other toxins were openly purchased from the US). and in the end Margaret Thatcher said, BUsh and Major are gone, but Saddam is still around, I wonder who really won. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 01 Apr 04 - 02:24 PM Having managed to "collar" Dr. Khan, I would imagine he was fully interrogated with regard to his activities. As those activities were associated with a black-market in nuclear technology and materials required for uranium enrichment, etc. The last thing you would want to do is blast it all over the world's press, until you had tied up as many of the leads as possible. As for your examples from history, they appear to be more fiction than fact. 1. US dealings with Saddam: - The US supplied Saddam with very little in way of arms. Saddam's forces could not have used them, practically all of Iraq's military hardware was Russian/Warsaw Pact equipment, what wasn't was French. Interestingly enough, and odd though it may seem, the US did supply Iran with military hardware, no problem with compatibility there, most of the stuff Iran had at the time was left over from the days of the Shah, i.e. American. - Saddam was not what could be considered as being "in anyone's pocket". The main aim at the time was two-fold, a) to ensure that the outcome of the Iran/Iraq war was a stalemate, and b) to ensure that Iraq did not fragment as a result of cessation of hostilities. 2. If James Baker did make it abundantly clear in 1990 that the US didnt care about Iraqs border dispute with Kuwait. He must have back-tracked on that in rapid order. 3. After the signing of the ceasefire agreements at Safwan, the Kurds could be protected as US and UK contingents could use Turkey as a base. The Shia, as you say, were encouraged to rise up against Saddam and were shamefully left out to dry. Norman Schwarzkopf admitted that allowing the Iraqi's to fly helicopters inside the southern "no-fly" zone was his gravest error at Safwan. At the time the Iraqi's stated that such flights would be humanitarian aid as roads and bridges had been knocked out. The other mistake that Stormin' Norman owned up to was not insisting that Saddam himself come to Safwan and sign the ceasefire agreement. 4. Saddam Hussein got no bio-weapons from the US, what the Iraqi's asked for and what they got was sample cultures to improve their chemical/biological defence capability. Of course how they used them is a completely different story, but they did not get weapons or weaponised C/B agents from the US. 5. Margaret Thatcher said, Bush and Major are gone, but Saddam is still around, I wonder who really won. Saddam always portrayed it to the Arab world that he had won using exactly that reasoning. I mentioned that once before in this forum and got rubbished for making that claim. Saddam's behaviour post-Desert Storm to March 2003, was a protracted game of deception and concealment played with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC and driving holes through the sanctions and the embargoes put in place by the UN. Throughout this the United Nations did what it does best - nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,petr Date: 02 Apr 04 - 01:11 PM teribus I would 'imagine' that Khan was fully interrogated as well but thats only an assumption - but it is a fact that he was immediately pardoned - and his confession which was taped and played on pakistani tv implied that he didnt do this on his own - I find it hard to believe that he wouldnt - after all the Pakistani secret service the ISI set up the Taliban (and were friendly with Mohammed ATTA) as for your point on my historical references being more fiction, the only points you really dispute are US arms to Iraq (we can really quibble over that - they certainly provided satellite intelligence, computer databases to keep track of opponents, and according to a former Reagan adviser Teicher (who swore in an affidavit that the CIA supplied Saddam with non-us weapons) whether he was in their 'pocket' is quibbling as well, because the cia helped Saddam out a number of times in the 60s and whether or not they really controlled him is beside the point, he was on their side and they used him. (which after all wasnt an uncommon thing with US policy - Shah of iran, Pinochet, Noriega or is that fiction too?) and whether or not they supplied him with weaponized anthrax and other bio-agents or samples for 'defense' is quibling too. (only takes a few unemployed ex-soviet bio-weapon experts to help out) This was at a time when they knew he was a bastard and Lack of Iraqi Freedom Didnt seem to bother Rumsfeld one bit. and your point about the US supplying arms to Iran? sure we all know about the IRan Contra deal. SOmething Reagan couldnt REMEMBER, and even if he did, George BUsh I immediately pardoned him. (a lot more serious in my opinion than getting a blowjob by an intern) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:55 AM when Sen.B. Kerry asked his questions what was he reffering to when he talked about the "M" word ??????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Apr 04 - 10:59 AM Bob Kerrey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:20 PM "Moron?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:08 PM well, that was pretty much a waste of time. dr.rice can certainly fill up the time with hot air and has never heard a question that can be answered with a "yes" or "no" apparently. she doggedly offered her spin on the situation, did not significantly refute or criticize anything clarke had said earlier, and dodged every hard question, of which there were few. by the ,dougR, i've answered your every question and your request for my name but you have yet to comment on the bushlie i pointed out to you on mar 22. i won't bring it up again as apparently you realize that there is no way to assert that it is not a baldfaced lie other than making the "it's a mistake cuz of bad intelligence" excuse that we're now getting for everything related to the iraq war build-up. i will accept your lack of comment as verifying that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: dianavan Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:43 PM "it's a mistake cuz of bad intelligence" In other words: ignorant, stupid, dumb ... Isn't it interesting that the current administration thinks that this is an excuse? Who's minding the store? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,pdc Date: 09 Apr 04 - 03:30 PM Frankly, I wonder if any blame should be put on Rice at all. IMO, the entire administration is run by Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, and while Bush is the titular head of the administration, I don't think he is the actual power. (Consider the number of vacations he takes.) Couldn't it be that Rice was/is in the same position -- the token black woman in a high position -- while all the actual decisions etc. were/are made by the cabal? There is a lot of evidence, much of it critical, that Rumsfeld insisted on making any decisions to do with military and security issues, ignoring intelligence reports whenever he chose, or interpreting them to fit his preconceived ideas. Opinions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: Bobert Date: 09 Apr 04 - 08:00 PM Well danged, pdc, shes a lot easier on the eyes than the other porch negro, Colin.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security? From: GUEST,pdc Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:23 PM Not funny, Bobert. |
