NationStates Jolt Archive

Michael Moore knew that time would prove him right, and here it is in the centrist, non biased Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21854-2005Apr2.html?

Here we have an Administration who rushed our country into a poorly thoughtout war with no clear advantages to the American people which thousands on both sides have died in, and now more evidence that Bush and friends ignored the work of those whose jobs it is to know whether a country is a threat to us or not.

And yet the majority of you will still defend Bush till your last breath. I don't get it and I never will. If this had happened on a Democrat's watch, you rightwingers would be calling for his head on a pike.


And in other news...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22008-2005Apr2.html?

More torture....sigh........what happened to this country?

I will NOT defend Bush.

I don't understand how you can defend him. he has done nothing good. Only bad.

Here's more news for you, courtesy of CBC, March 31st, 2005:

"Report says U.S. spy agencies were 'dead wrong' about Iraq"

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/31/usspies050331.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - A U.S. presidential commission, reviewing intelligence information in connection to the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, has offered some damning conclusions about the conduct of the CIA and other spy agencies in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

The report concludes the agencies were "dead wrong" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The report says the U.S. intelligence agencies knew "disturbingly little" about the most dangerous threats in the world today.

The nine member Commission on Intelligence Capabilities and Weapons of Mass Destruction was appointed by George W. Bush a year ago. The report does not directly criticize Bush or anyone in his administration, but it does say that problems have been allowed to fester for far too long.

"They got wrong the critical judgments with respect to nuclear weapons, with respect to biological weapons and with respect to chemical weapons," said former Democratic Senator Chuck Robb of Virginia, who along with retired judge Laurence Silberman, a well-known conservative Republican, co-chaired the commission.

In their report U.S. spy agencies come across as fools; blinded by having too few agents in the field; made stupid because in seeing only what they wanted to they produced worthless conclusions; and immature because they obsessively indulged in inter-agency turf wars.

"They had very little evidence collected. What little evidence they had they pushed into assumptions based on the past behaviour of Saddam Hussein," said Silberman.

"The central conclusion is one that I share," said President Bush. "America's intelligence community needs fundamental change."

Bush seemed satisfied with the Commission's conclusions, a "sharp critique" he called it.

Robb and Silberman said they found no evidence that the spymasters were pressured by their political masters to find weapons of mass destruction where none existed, in order to falsely justify a war. "If somebody has a member of the intelligence community that can say to us we changed our analysis ... we haven't heard from them," said Robb.

The report also says, in one section, that "across the board, the intelligence community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors," an oblique but obvious reference to Iran and North Korea.

But that section of the report remains classified. "We simply cannot talk about those subjects," said Silberman.



And my friend from across town just phoned and told me about this little gem:

"Iraq abuse: US general's role revealed"

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C75468BB-B524-43F6-A611-3397F5F44B1A.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A leading US civil liberties group has obtained a document showing that the former US commander in Iraq sanctioned the abuse that took place in Abu Ghraib prison.

The document, which is published on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website www.aclu.org, reveals that Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques using dogs, stress positions, sleep and isolation.

The techniques are against the Geneva Conventions and are forbidden by US army regulations.

Sanchez authorised 29 interrogation techniques in the 2003 memo which was released by the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Presence of Military Working Dogs. Exploits Arab fear of dogs," is one technique listed.

"Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control. Used to create fear, disorient detainee and prolong capture shock," is another.

In addition to Sanchez's memo, the Pentagon also released 1200 pages of documents which included reports of abuse and sworn statements by troops saying they were ordered to beat prisoners.

"General Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.

"He and other high-ranking officials who bear responsibility for the widespread abuse of detainees must be held accountable."

ACLU is accusing General Sanchez of perjury after he denied that he had permitted such techniques during a Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2004.

"I never approved any of those measures to be used ... at any time in the last year," he said under oath.

"Lieutenant-General Sanchez's testimony, given under oath before the Senate Armed Services committee, is utterly inconsistent with the written record, and deserves serious investigation," Anthony D Romero, ACLU executive director, said in a letter to attorney-general Alberto Gonzales, asking him to open an investigation into possible perjury.

Romero added: "This clear breach of the public's trust is also further proof that the American people deserve the appointment of an independent special counsel by the attorney-general."

The document contradicts US army and Defence Department claims the Abu Ghraib abuse was carried out by individuals acting without orders.

Those accused of abusing prisoners say they were scapegoats for high-ranking officers and politicians who ordered that detainees be tortured so intelligence gathering in Iraq could be improved.

"The government is asking a corporal to take the hit for them," the lawyer of Charles Graner said after his client was given a 10-year prison sentence in January for being a ring-leader in the abuse scandal.

"The chain of command says, 'We didn't know anything about this stuff'. You know that is a lie," the lawyer said.

Reacting to the development, Alaa Shalabi, a senior researcher with the Arab Organisation for Human Rights in Egypt, said the revelations were not a surprise.

"We have proof that these kinds of techniques were practised, especially in Abu Ghraib," he said. "Such actions raise suspicions about the whole chain of command all the way to [US President George] Bush. These practices have been justified by the Pentagon."

Shalabi said he thought abuses were common in all of the detention camps run by the US military.

The US Defence Department said they will respond to the issue in due course of time.





- Lovely people, aren't they?

This is actually something thet the USAians can hold their heads up and walk tall about. Their system came out and said that the intelligence was "dead wrong". It admits that it does not know what is happening in Iran and NK. It says that it had the wrong way of thinking about things. What did the British review decide? It decided that there were "weaknesses" in the human elements in the system.

Come on UK. We got it wrong as well. Stand up and admit it.

Kudos to the USA on this.

(The war was still wrong, however)

Maybe you're right. Maybe in light of this,we should consider releasing sadaam and helping put him back in his rightful place. Pay reparations for killing his sons. Compensate him for damage to any of the dozen palaces and other holy places we defiled while we were there. Hell-Michael Moore is such an oracle, maybe sadaam could appoint him as an advisor.
We should also appologize to the UN-we all know how effective, decisive, and honest they are. Let them do there job-thats what they are there for.

The funny thing is - the intelligence agencies were saying that they might have WMD's and showing iffy sources which they admitted were not 100% sure about them, but the Bush administration says they ahd the facts and the facts clearly show they have WMDs without a doubt. They have been knowingly manipulating the public and stillr efuse to offer any kind of apology. Funny huh?? hah!

What a surprise. I mean, I'm completely shocked, because there was no way that Iraq couldn't have had WMD's!

:rolleyes:

And yet the majority of you will still defend Bush till your last breath. I don't get it and I never will. If this had happened on a Democrat's watch, you rightwingers would be calling for his head on a pike.

More torture....sigh........what happened to this country?

Two things to consider ... the majority is not defending Bush, just a vocal minority. Though he won the majority vote for the Presidency, part of the fault there is that the Democrats did really come off in the minds of fiance types as representing a danger to their earnings. I'm sure that there people who don't like Bush who voted for him more out of the "evil you know" type of thing. The market likes a known thing.

As for "what happened to the US", bear in mind that the United States had been torturing and imprisoning citizens with no criminal records (think of the Japanese internment) long before the 21st century.

I'm rather amazed to think how socially progressive __the world__ has become. This isn't a justification for what is being done. It bothers me too. But I think saying, "what happened" implies that the old days were better. They weren't. Not by a long shot. And reliving in the past is just not really going to help matters.

Maybe you're right. Maybe in light of this,we should consider releasing sadaam and helping put him back in his rightful place. Pay reparations for killing his sons. Compensate him for damage to any of the dozen palaces and other holy places we defiled while we were there. Hell-Michael Moore is such an oracle, maybe sadaam could appoint him as an advisor.
We should also appologize to the UN-we all know how effective, decisive, and honest they are. Let them do there job-thats what they are there for.

Or maybe we should have concentrated our resources on finding Osama Bin Laden, the guy who was ACTUALLY responsible for 9/11 in the first place. Just a thought.

Seems you Bush Davidians have made quick work of forgetting all about little Osama and his handiwork over these three years.....

As for "what happened to the US", bear in mind that the United States had been torturing and imprisoning citizens with no criminal records (think of the Japanese internment) long before the 21st century.

I'm rather amazed to think how socially progressive __the world__ has become. This isn't a justification for what is being done. It bothers me too. But I think saying, "what happened" implies that the old days were better. They weren't. Not by a long shot. And reliving in the past is just not really going to help matters.

True, I stand corrected

Or maybe we should have concentrated our resources on finding Osama Bin Laden, the guy who was ACTUALLY responsible for 9/11 in the first place. Just a thought.

Seems you Bush Davidians have made quick work of forgetting all about little Osama and his handiwork over these three years.....


Who said anyone forgot about bin laden? both jobs needed to be done.

Bush Davidian? Where did you learn that one, MTV? Thats a moronic,biased name calling and a clear sign of someone who feels so defeated. I voted for President Bush both times-I agree with a lot, disagree with some. Kerry was a total joke, but the best the democrats could do at the time.

No I havent forgotten. Nor has anyone I know. But a solid majority voted for our President. It wasnt close. And I'm sorry if that left a group of small minded, bitter little people feeling left out. And I have yet to have anyone's christian faith imposed on me. More just the senseless, disrespectful voices of a weak minority.

...a solid majority voted for our President. It wasnt close. And I'm sorry if that left a group of small minded, bitter little people feeling left out.

ROFL

If you built a house with foundations as solid as Bush's 'solid majority', you'd have to rent a trailer to sleep in...

This is actually something thet the USAians can hold their heads up and walk tall about. Their system came out and said that the intelligence was "dead wrong". It admits that it does not know what is happening in Iran and NK. It says that it had the wrong way of thinking about things. What did the British review decide? It decided that there were "weaknesses" in the human elements in the system.

Come on UK. We got it wrong as well. Stand up and admit it.

Kudos to the USA on this.

(The war was still wrong, however)

Alot of people here in the UK admit that the government had it wrong on WMD's.

Hell alot of people have demanded an apology from the primeminister, one which has not been forthcoming. You won't hear Blair or Bush apologising for their mistakes, because they beleive they did the right thing anyway, and that time will justify the war irregardless of the fact that they lied to start it.

ROFL

If you built a house with foundations as solid as Bush's 'solid majority', you'd have to rent a trailer to sleep in...


Thats good, I'm sure you have a wealth of knowledge on trailers.
President Bush won by majority-it wasnt close, despite all the liberal cries that the country was divided and it was a tight race-it wasnt. Even with bogus exit polling. etc...

Thats good, I'm sure you have a wealth of knowledge on trailers.
President Bush won by majority-it wasnt close, despite all the liberal cries that the country was divided and it was a tight race-it wasnt. Even with bogus exit polling. etc...

Just as I'm sure you have a paucity of knowledge on structural design.

"solid" - (sŏl'ĭd) http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&oi=defmore&q=define:solid

Definitions of solid on the Web(amongst many):

- of good quality and condition; solidly built; "a solid foundation"; "several substantial timber buildings"

- acting together as a single undiversified whole; "a solid voting bloc"

Actual voting percentages in last US Presidential Campaign (as provided by CNN.com - http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/):

Bush 51%

Kerry 48%

Nader 1%


So, to return to the 'solid' bit - like I said, "if you built a house with foundations as solid as Bush's 'solid majority', you'd have to rent a trailer to sleep in". Why's that, you say? Because if you tried living in such a house, it would collapse.

I could just as easily have suggested living at a five-star hotel rather than inside a house that cannot stand, would that fit in better with your sense of reality?

yawn.

The only reason Kerry lost was because he wasn't any better than Bush. I'd say nearly all of Kerry's votes were I'm-protesting-Bush votes. Some people actually strongly support the war in Iraq, and despite it being preemptive, pulled randomly out of Bush's ass, with faulty evidence (WMD, Al-Quada Ties. I hear Osama despises Saddam. Saddam is too Western and not religiously minded enough), only so Bush could "one-up" his father. Some people say it was our duty to the Iraqi people and the world to depose him, though if we were doing that, why didnt we do it in the Sudan first (OIL? One-up-m-father?)? And who asked the Iraqi people? What probable benefit had this for our people (BEsides oil. I will however admit that the democractic movement in Lebanon was nice, but I don't think we foresaw it. It's more of a by-product, I'd say), usually our interference in Middle-Eastern countries seems to piss off middle-eastern countries and other muslim countries even if it is to their benefit! Accoding to Time Magazine (Sept. 13? 2004 I think) somwhere it says in opinion of the US in Indonesia has reached an all time low. There doesn't seem to have been a clear motive is what bothers me. We demanded UN inspections and then didn't like what we weren't finding. It's like a witch-hunt. If you have weaponswe'll forcibly destroy them and depose you, if you don't have any, you're a liar and we'll depose you.