BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:31 PM

Al-Tuwaitha

Has anyone wondered why US Marines were ordered to guard a warehouse that contained--and had contained about 500 tons of yellowcake since 1991? "What were 500 tons of yellow cake uranium still doing at the nuclear research center of Al—Tuwaitha in Iraq when American tanks rolled into Bagdhad?" That was in 2004, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:36 PM

So that explains why there were no troops available to guard the museums - or the weapon dumps...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 08:26 PM

Yes, Bush lied.

Is there "proof"? You mean like a secret presidential memo that says, "I'm lying and no one catch me," then, no, there's no proof of a tactile evidence that can be touched and examined and analysed for clues.

The proof is in the logic. Bush was telling people things he stated to be fact when he knew very well they were not facts, had not been proven. Doesn't matter what he believed and it doesn't quite wash for me that he can only be said to have been guilty of following bad advice or acting on bad intelligence. He lied--plain and simple. There's no other way to put it--nothing else that can be concluded. He told us things that he assured us were facts but which not one of his intelligence services would or could substantiate. That means, no matter what he believed to be true, he KNEW these could not be stated as facts because far too many important people and organizations doubted the authenticity. It would be essential to have the consensus of these organizations before Bush's assertions could be called facts and Bush did not have this consensus and knew perfectly that he did not have it.

If I devise a cold fusion experiment and a few scientists jump on my bandwagon while the overwhelming remainder of that community knows my experiment was flawed and the results therefore meaningless, I can believe still believe it and only be a victim of my own bad intelligence. But the instant I tell the public that my experiment did, in fact, prove cold fusion was true--I am lying. It has NOT been proven and I cannot help but know that it had not been proven because the majority of the scientific community has solid reasons to doubt my results and methodology. Until I have consensus from them, my own peers, any claim to fact by me is a lie and could only be a lie because I am saying something I must know is not true.

This is precisely what Bush did. He made statements he believed to be true and touted them to the the public as the fact he believed it to be BUT he KNEW it had NOT been proven and therefore could NOT be fact regardless of what he believed.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:23 PM

"I have seen no proof that Saddam tried to buy yellow-cake from Nigeria. Have you?"

No. I haven't seen any but I believe Saddam did try to buy yellowcake from Nigeria but was unsucessful.

What do you believe?

Read this: http://metacortex.humanfactors.uq.edu.au/lex/us_senate_intell_judgements/Map/data/iraqreport2_ocr.pdf~4.html

Go there and search for Niger. It will also shed light on the Joe Wilson ,Valerie Plame, Scooter debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:31 PM

well, all you have to do is to look at the credibility of the Bush administration in the eyes of the public and the rest of the world- and theres your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Folkiedave
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:26 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey - PM
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:23 PM

I took a look at the page you suggested.

It is full of gross spelling errors, and total illiteracy.

Who made it up - because it obviously is made up.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:02 AM

OK, it looks like a post has been removed- and I can't see why...



"To 282RA

"He made statements he believed to be true and touted them to the the public as the fact he believed it to be BUT he KNEW it had NOT been proven and therefore could NOT be fact regardless of what he believed. "


So, YOU are lying to us?"

or something like that. Is there some editing going on here?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:07 AM

We can never answer the question "Did Bush Lie?"

But it is not an important question.

His job, as Commander in Chief, was to make sure that we went to war based on accurate and truthful information. Clearly, we did not. Where does the buck stop?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:45 AM

"His job, as Commander in Chief, was to make sure that we went to war based on accurate and truthful information."

You are joking aren't you TIA?

His job, as Commander-in-Chief of your armed forces and the elected Executive Head of State, is to safeguard the integrity, security and national interests of the United States of America. He has to make decisions related to those aspects based on the best intelligence available at the time and upon the evaluation of such intelligence in relation to any given situation at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:04 AM

Teribus,

Give it a rest. It should be obvious that PART of ensuring the safety and the "national interests" of the nation is ensuring it doesn't, as a nation, make a bleeding idiot out of itself or make enemies unnecessarily, or in an unjust cause.

Many of us saw through the facade of his conflationary tactics, and wondered if he, in fact, had some access to data we didn't, to be doing such bizarre things. As it turned out, he did not. The intelligence that fell short was his own ability to know when things make sense and when they do not, an ability one (IMHO) would expect to be demonstrated by either a good executive or a good Commander. As it has turned out he is neither.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:07 AM

Bush couldn't evaluate a Chiquita banana with any degree of accuracy. But then, that's why he's President. The folks who got him elected didn't want a thinker. And they didn't get one. They got Bush. His NIEs seem to have been skewed. I think Bush knew something wasn't quite right, but I also think he's too stupid to have been able to figure out what.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:13 AM

Sorry Amos, in any direct competition where on one hand we have the "national interests" of the United States of America, and on the other hand we have how the United States of America may be perceived for following a certain course of action to safeguard those "national interests" - The latter is going to lose hands down if the matter has to be dictated by the US Government - From their point of view quite rightly so.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:17 AM

based on the best intelligence available at the time and upon the evaluation of such intelligence in relation to any given situation at that time
Absolutely. But the intelligence was being ferociously spun by the neo-cons and their allies in an attempt to justify the war. The people at the sharp end, gathering rather than presenting, knew damned well that it was being spun and they are still seething about that.
Bush and Blair were told what their acolytes thought they wanted to hear. And, on the rare occasions when someone dared pipe up with a converse view, they were told 'we don't want to hear this - don't come back until you're singing our tune.'
As such, to go back to the question that started this thread, I don't think that, at present, it's possible to say that Bush lied per se.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:22 AM

"national interests" is a pretty vague term. Care to elaborate, teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:31 AM

REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ
"..The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996 1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, z businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence reportsaid that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq..."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:49 AM

It appears you're still getting Niger and Nigeria mixed up, Dickey, though you aren't the only one. It doesn't take long to check those kind of things.

It's a bit like getting confused between Iraq and Iran or Austria and Australis, or Zambia and the Gambia. People who do that kind of thing undermine their credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:58 AM

MGH: What is the word for a person from Niger?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:00 AM

"His job, as Commander-in-Chief of your armed forces and the elected Executive Head of State, is to safeguard the integrity, security and national interests of the United States of America"


integrity????

security????

national interests???


---FAILED

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: bobad
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:06 AM

From Wikipedia:

The Name Niger

The adjective form of Niger is Nigerien /niːˈʒɛɹiən/ or /naɪdʒɪɹiˈɛn/, which should not be confused with Nigerian /naɪˈdʒiɹiən/ for Nigeria and derives from the French nigérien, -ne. There are different opinions about the adjective form however. Merriam-Webster lists Nigerois (which has, despite its sound, no equivalent form in French) only as the noun form. However, there are instances of Nigerois having been used adjectivally. CNN and other news sources often circumvent using the adjective altogether, using the noun instead, e.g. 'the Niger parliament', 'Niger leader slain' or 'Niger's capital', 'Niger's people'. In French, the citizens of Niger use the adjective 'nigérien'.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:09 AM

"But the intelligence was being ferociously spun by the neo-cons and their allies in an attempt to justify the war."

The "intelligence" was the contents of the UNSCOM Report to the United Nations Security Council, delivered in January 1999, both Scott Ritter and Dr. Hans Blix provided input and were responsible for the contents of this report. Damn near every intelligence service in the world believed it to be correct, even the Syrians believed it to be true, the vote for UNSCR 1441 was unanimous.

"The people at the sharp end, gathering rather than presenting, knew damned well that it was being spun and they are still seething about that."

"Utter bollocks", to use one of your own favourite expressions.

The findings of every investigation into the decision to go to war have been:

- that the spin was non-existant;
- no evaluation from the JIC Assessment Committee was ever suppressed or "doctored".

That the Prime Minister had described Saddam as posing an "imminent", or an "immediate", threat was exposed for what it was - a complete myth, no such thing was EVER said by any member of the British Government.

No-one lied, get over it, irrespective of how much you would like to believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:23 AM

What I was referring to, GUEST,Dickey, was the post (12 Feb 07 - 09:23 PM) where you (or perhaps some other GUEST using your name) wrote:

"I believe Saddam did try to buy yellowcake from Nigeria but was unsuccessful", and to back that up gave a link to a report about Niger.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:32 AM

...and Dickey -

In my post of Feb. 12 - 7:01, I was laughing at your question of Feb. 12 - 6:09.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:33 AM

Terry, poppet, I suggest you read this from the post-Hutton BBC.
Then think again about your last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:34 AM

"The findings of every investigation into the decision to go to war... "

Well, as Mandy Rice-Davies famously said, "They would say that, wouldn't they."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:12 PM

No one lied, the American people were told the whole truth at every juncture. Hence the Downing Street memo scandal was all an invention, there was actually a genuine threat that Saddam could launch nuclear missiles at the United States, and Saddam really was among the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks, Osama not withstanding. Teribus, you are a daisy indeed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:25 PM

It is what Bush has DONE that primarily concerns me, not whether or not he lied while he was doing it. I suspect that all politicians lie to some extent. I think the job almost makes that mandatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:04 PM

Apparently, we have a couple of nut cases who don't think Bush's lying to get us into this war is a big deal. IT IS A BIG DEAL!!! It's a very big deal. The truth is it doesn't matter whether he got us into this war if no charge of lying to accomplish it is ever leveled at him. It will be swept under the rug leaving the door wide open for a future president to do the same and hide behind this administration's lies to justify it.

The only way we can prevent this from happening again is to assert that Bush lied and take the appropriate action. THIS sends a message to future neocon-like political groups out there looking for a front man that this kind of thing will not be tolerated. By saying the lies don't really matter is, by definition, tolerating it. And nothing makes me sicker than hearing something justifed with "Well, everybody does it." I don't fucking care!!!! He lied, his lies have destroyed our Pax Americana, gotten hundreds of thousands killed, made folk heroes of terrorists, cost our nation our financial well-being and our military readiness and increased our debt to point that I don't think we can ever pay it off.

He lied, it's easily provable that he lied and he needs to be made to answer for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:08 PM

Yeah, okay. Fine with me. I hope they do prove he lied, and prosecute him for it someday.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:44 PM

Amos,

"there was actually a genuine threat that Saddam could launch nuclear missiles at the United States, "


NOT what was claimed- it was that he had an active program to develop WMD, which he did.

"and Saddam really was among the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks, "

Also never claimed/


Care to provide ANY examples of where Bush said either of these lies?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:15 PM

I meant to say:

"I believe Saddam did try to buy yellowcake from Niger but was unsuccessful"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:21 PM

a. There is a situation where someone tells a lie, which means they say something which they know is untrue.

b. There is the situation where they say something which they believe to be true, with the intention of telling the truth, but in fact what they are saying is not true.

c. And there is the situation where they set out to mislead, and succeed in misleading, but take care to avoid telling any direct falsehoods, or to correct (intended?) misinterpretations by the media etc.

Whether or not there were actual direct lies is hard to pin down. It's not too easy to tell what is in the mind of a politician saying something that turns out not to be true. But I think most people - and not just those on "the left" either, unless, for example, Kenneth Clark is counted as "on the left" - would agree there was intent to deceive in some of the speeches and statement that carefully trod the line of ambiguity.

For example where Bush repeatedly juxtaposed comments about Iraq and 911 in such a way as to invite listeners to understand the existence of a link between the two.

Or, for another example, the "45 minutes" allegation, arising Tony Blair's carefully crafted written comment that Saddam's "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." Which in tabloid newspapers became "Brits 45 Mins from Doom", and ""Mad Saddam Ready to Attack: 45 Minutes from a Chemical War". Blair made no effort whatsoever at the time, either himself or through his subordinates, to correct these exaggerated and misleading claims. (Which he subsequently distanced himself from, well aftern teybn ahd achieved their effect at the time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:29 PM

"And there is the situation where they set out to mislead, and succeed in misleading, but take care to avoid telling any direct falsehoods, or to correct (intended?) misinterpretations..."

Gee, I am having that same problem in my workplace at this very moment. I think its a sign of the times.

Is this how people convince themselves that they are justified in making decisions that would otherwise be considered unethical?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:20 PM

Is this a lie, propaganda, a falsehood or a true statement:

    [S]peaking on ABC's "This Week" television programme, Senator John Kerry said he has no doubt that "there are weapons flowing across the border" from Iran.

    "Nobody questions, those of us who have been to Iraq and in the region know that there are Iranian instigators, agents in Iraq, and that's happening, there's no question," Kerry said.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:18 PM

Probably true, Dickey, just as it was probably true that in Northern Ireland throughout the Eighties, there were a lot a US weapons kicking around the paramilitaries. And there were Americans collecting money for the IRA.
Tell me, Dickey, old son, what's the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:50 PM

Teribus--

You assure us that Tony never described Saddam as an "imminent" threat. Whatever you say.

Therefore, he misled the UK electorate by suckering them into a war he never told them was necessary. He never credibly justified the war in terms of Britain's national security. But he dragged Britain into it anyway.

And that's just fine with you. Because you never expect to have your leaders justify their positions.

They know more than you. And you know your place. Like a good little matelot.

The overwhelming vast majority of the UK electorate, however, doesn't share your supine stance--based on what I've read, nobody does.

But if you're comfortable in that position, that's all that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:14 PM

Ron, I shall adopt the position that I will refuse to discuss the contents of a Report to Parliament (image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/07/07/WMD_report.pdf - ) unless the person I am discussing the subject with actually reads it.

By the bye, the actual words used to describe the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq were "current and serious" - i.e. much in line with what US President Bill Clinton stated four years previously. Bill Clinton and the American Government believed that to be the case to the extent that removal of Saddam Hussein from power became official US Foreign Policy and a unilateral bombing campaign was launched against Iraq. Bill Clinton was correct on the information and assessment made at that time, and Tony Blair and George W Bush were correct in March 2003, going on the information and the assessment made at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:22 PM

Teribus--


As I said, you never expect your leaders to justify their positions. After all, they always know more than you. And you know your place.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:45 PM

Simply read John Perkin's book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and you will know exactly why the USA decided by the time of the first Gulf War in '91 to label Saddam's Iraq a "threat" to the USA....which it most certainly was not. Never at any time was Iraq a credible threat to the USA. The USA was a totally credible threat to Iraq, however, from the moment that the USA decide to be, and they decided that because Saddam wouldn't play ball with the USA's larger corporate and strategic plans for that region.

It was the old tactic of the Big Lie, practiced with much success by Adolf Hitler's regime. You simply accuse the OTHER guy (your next chosen target) of being exactly what you are....a dire threat. And then you attack him.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:55 PM

A lot of all this reminds me of

"Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:04 PM

"And you know your place"

And thus he seems to think that it is his rightful job to tell everybody else what their place is.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:33 PM

Actually I was wrong when I said that nobody shares Teribus' supine position. In the US, quite a few did (and some still do). They're called Bush voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:56 PM

"You simply accuse the OTHER guy (your next chosen target) of being exactly what you are....a dire threat. And then you attack him."

So THAT's why Al Qaeda claimed the US was a dire threat and attacked.

It all makes sense now. Iran and Israel, Chavez and the US. Yess.

Why are Canadians claiming the US is a dire threat? Are we about to be set upon with harpoons and oosiks?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 12:17 AM

Fuckin' right. So watch out.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 01:47 AM

Let me put it to you simply, Dickey. A country with the world's largest military, the world's largest GNP, the world's largest navy and air force, the word's most aggressive national policy, and many thousands of nuclear weapons is a dire threat to many smaller nations.

Al Queda would never even have come into existence without all the insane stuff the USA has done since 1945 to provoke and oppress people in the Muslim World. Besides, the USA basically trained, armed, and funded the people who later became Al Queda. They did that to kill Russians in Afghanistan back in the 80's. Have you forgotten? Osama used to work for Uncle Sam.

Read John Perkins' book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It was on the New York Times bestseller list in 2004. You can find it in any large bookstore. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:02 AM

Ron Davies - 13 Feb 07 - 05:50 PM

"Teribus--

You assure us that Tony never described Saddam as an "imminent" threat. Whatever you say.

Therefore, he misled the UK electorate by suckering them into a war he never told them was necessary. He never credibly justified the war in terms of Britain's national security. But he dragged Britain into it anyway."

If that is an example of your reasoning Ron, then it is little wonder that you think the way you do. If memory serves me correctly Ron the matter was debated fully in Parliament before the decision to use force was made.

As for:

"As I said, you never expect your leaders to justify their positions. After all, they always know more than you. And you know your place."

First Part:
"...you never expect your leaders to justify their positions".

Not true. It depends totally on the leader and on the situation.

Second Part:
"After all, they always know more than you."

If you are talking about National leaders here, what you state above is generally the case in any given situation. Main difference between you and me Ron is that I actually read and listen to what they say, whereas you read and listen to people who tell you what they said (Foolstroupe's - "Send three and fourpence...").

Third Part:
"And you know your place."

The usual superior, patronising insult which has become the hallmark of your contributions due mainly to the fact that as you do not have the capacity for independent thought you have very little to say after your instructed beliefs are demolished.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:29 AM

Er, Terry, have you forgotten me? You seem very keen to whirl around like a dust devil, pouring scorn on Ron, but you haven't answered any of my posts for a while. Come on laddie, let's see a bit of multi-tasking! What are your thoughts on the BBC document I linked to above?
And, as a matelot, I'd love to hear you thoughts on Geoff Hoon's admissions. Just think, had you stayed in the service, he would have been your boss. Not exactly a thought to make the chest swell with pride, is it?

But I digress. Surely there has to come a point where you have to stand back and actually ask yourself what it is you are trying to defend and why.
Do you honestly believe that our role has been played honourably and decently throughout? Your cut'n'paste trumpetings of 'reconstruction' aren't exactly a modern Marshall Plan, are they? And the corruption, back-handing and general sleaze involved make the world of the Third Man seem like Little Women.
Afghanistan I can understand. Iraq I can't. And yet our ability to deal effectively in one theatre is being hamstrung by our commitment to the other. If you want confirmation of that from all corps and ranks, just look at the current affairs section of ARRSE (I presume you already look at the Rum Ration board). You'll find that your view is very, very much the minority view.
Face it, Terry, two nations which liked to claim the moral high ground and present themselves as the successors of Greece and Rome have f*cked up.
In Bush and Blair we have two very different but equally arrogant leaders who have embarked on an illegal war for reasons which were trumped up and spun. Whether or not Bush actually, personally lied is a sideshow.
That war has happened - it can't be undone and the genie can't be put back in the bottle. As a result Iraq is tearing itself apart. British and US forces cannot stop this, and can only delay the carnage. Yet we can't pull them out because that would cause an instant and devastating loss of stability. Thus the poor sods have to hang on as a long as is decent, doing a job to the best of their abilities.
Unless, that is, there is a huge volte face on the part of the US and things do start to change in the wider Middle East. Then, perhaps, one could imagine scope for longer-term optimism. Sadly I don't see anyone with the balls to do that.

It's interesting and instructive looking back over old postings to see how things have played out. One on the "Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?" thread was perhaps prescient, and - from the same poster - now apparently no longer here - there was this on the same thread.
Not much has changed to make me disagree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Bush lied, Clinton lied
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 09:47 PM

Well, this lady has constructed an indictmentment against Bush, et al. There should be hundreds of these already proceeding through the courts, but we get one, in 'hypothetical' form. And the same ol' crew is using the same ol' template to launch a war against Iran.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=143205

D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:01 PM

I take serious issue with the title of this thread.

Why is the verb in the past rather than in the present tense?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:04 PM

Because even as we speak, Grasshopper, the present has become the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:35 PM

And the past is the future....