sfointern
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:19 am

George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Mon Mar 08, 2004 5:23 pm

Published on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 by the St. Petersburg Times
After Pigeon Inspections, Bush Eats Crow
by Bill Maxwell

If so many lives had not been lost and were not still being lost each day, the Bush administration's weapons of mass destruction faux-intelligence campaign leading up to the invasion of Iraq would be laughable.

The report by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) confirms what the U.S. government's own inspectors, led by David Kay, found: Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs and had not had any of a threat to his neighbors or the United States since 1991. The maligned UNMOVIC inspectors, all U.N. diplomats and arms-control experts, are trying to keep straight faces.

Demetrius Perricos, acting head of the U.N. inspection team, is speaking to the press for the first time since Kay declared that Iraq had no banned weapons. Before the invasion, Perricos and his team were belittled by the Bush administration because they were not producing appropriate results.

"For a lot of people who were negative because they didn't know, the impact from David Kay's pronouncement has started them to realize that there was expertise in UNMOVIC, that we were not incompetent," Perricos told USA Today.

UNMOVIC's study is the first independent one to assess intelligence on Iraq's WMDs. The group's only job since 1994 was to keep an eye on Iraqi weapons, yet the Bush team dismissed UNMOVIC's efforts.

"Of all the organizations that were looking at Iraq's weapons capability, the group that got the closest to the truth were the U.N. inspectors - by a long shot," said Jon Wolfsthal, a weapons expert for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

UNMOVIC inspectors learned before the invasion that U.S. intelligence tips amounted to a comedy of errors. The tips were almost always flawed or outright wrong. In one case, the review states, U.N. inspectors tried to verify a U.S. tip that a WMD site was disguised as a chicken farm. After UNMOVIC agents descended on the site under cover of darkness, they learned a stinky truth: The site was a chicken farm, complete with the mess and stench of chickens. Again following a U.S. tip, U.N. inspectors raided a farmhouse, believing they would find a cache of WMDs because their detectors signaled traces of banned substances. The weapons they found were conventional munitions allowed by the U.N. As to the traces of banned substances, the inspectors' equipment was reacting to sulfur from pigeons and their droppings.

Perricos and his colleagues have every right to feel vindicated by the new report, and they should be forgiven for gloating. USA Today reports that Perricos was in Iraq in November 2002, when the U.N. inspection team was part of the United States-led move to give Hussein one last chance to disarm. Before Perricos could prepare a report, Bush officials were on the Sunday morning talk circuit blasting Perricos and his inspectors for treating Hussein with kid's gloves.

A mere six weeks before the invasion, Secretary of State Colin Powell intoned on ABC's This Week that the president saw no further use for U.N. "inspectors to play detectives or Inspector Clouseau running all over Iraq." Powell's was a low blow because Clouseau is the blundering Peter Sellers character in the Pink Panther flicks.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted in August 2002 that UNMOVIC inspections "will be a sham." History has shown, however, that Rumsfeld and U.S. intelligence were the sham.

Still stinging from Kay's report of several weeks ago, the president and his handlers are wary of the U.N. review, which was seven years in the making. Its findings also vindicate those that Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the United Nations' nuclear monitoring agency, submitted to the U.N. Security Council before the war.

Again, the administration's comedy of errors would be laughable if so many lives and other resources were not invested. Perhaps Bush and his supporters will look back one day and realize that the United Nations, which the administration marginalized during the buildup to this war of choice, remains the world's most important and viable institution for peace and stability.

Bush and his team of hawks now find themselves crawling before the Security Council, the same group that was declared irrelevant little more than a year ago. Ironically, even as the ink dries on Iraq's first national constitution, the Bush administration must depend on the United Nations for success after America pulls out in June. This is a bitter pill for the president to swallow, but swallow it he must. He should have heeded the advice of the United Nations and its arms inspectors from the start. He deserves to eat crow.

© Copyright 2002-2004 St. Petersburg Times

 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:34 pm

"Do you want some freedom fries with your crow, Mr. Bush?" Big grin
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:43 pm

"Do you want some freedom fries with your crow, Mr. Bush?"

I'd rather give him a nice bottle of French wine, some Russian caviar, and some German Brats to chew on for a bit.  Big grin
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:46 pm

@SFOintern
dont you dare posting communist propaganda against The President!
if you dont like america go back to russia where your propaganda comes from!
10=2
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3506
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:12 pm

dont you dare posting communist propaganda against The President

LOL.

As I see, when the "average" American has no argument, the word "communist" still comes to save him. This good old MacCarthy !
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:27 pm

Question: Did UNMOVIC ever declare Iraq free of weapons? If yes, why were UN resolutions still being passed right up until late 2002? If no, why?

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:44 pm

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein...The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Senator John Kerry, D-Mass, Jan 23, 2003.

...and countless other quotes retrievable if you take a minute to search.

"Pit-stop the tired wagon and put on some from fresh tires". Respectfully and humbly, myself, USA citizen, R-Mich, Mar 8, 2004.

Regards...Jack
all best; jack
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Cfalk

Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:57 pm

The UNMOVIC inspections were pushed aside before they had a chance to complete their inquiry. But up to that point, they provided accurate information and effectively discovered and destroyed prohibited programs while the Bush administration´s claims to the contrary proved to be wrong on all counts. Could it be any clearer?

An public apology would be in order.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:03 am

Question: Did UNMOVIC ever declare Iraq free of weapons?

Gee, Mr. Bush...er, I mean, Cfalk, they didn't get a chance-they were run out of the country before they were finished, so Bush could start his war. Lord knows, we didn't want the TRUTH about WMD's to get in the way of his war.

The resolution passed, Cfalk, was to verify if Saddam was in compliance. The inspections were abruptly halted, because it was time for a war. Got it?
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:06 am

@sebolino

i hope the irony in my posting did not escape you  Smile
10=2
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:24 am

Alpha the point worth making is that even 1441 said iraq had wmds and was in breach of un resolutions. Even fracne and germany did not say iraq has no WMD whatsoever. It is a massive failure of intelligence or the WMDS are somewhere. The war was based on non complience with the un resolutuons, if only our idiot leaders had kept to that they would have saved themselves problems.

If they had said. Saddams Evil. Saddam kills his own people. he supports terrorists. He has the means to produce weapons. We dont know if he has much weaponery but if we dont remove him he will do so. Saddam has WMD programmes and he is breaking UN law because he hasnt complied with the resoultions then I think we would all have more respect for the us and the uk.

I still think the war was right for those reasons but I can see everyones point when they are annoyed with goverments who made it out(especially the british gov) that saddam could kill us in in five seconds flat when in fact he couldnt.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:28 am

The UNMOVIC inspections were pushed aside before they had a chance to complete their inquiry.

they didn't get a chance-they were run out of the country before they were finished,


So, 12 years was not enough time?

Remember that Saddam did not want UNMOVIC to declare him weapons-free. The embargo would still be on today if the war had not started - I am quite certain of that - and they would still be in force for many years to come.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:36 am

Alpha the point worth making is that even 1441 said iraq had wmds and was in breach of un resolutions.

1441 laid out that Iraq needed to surrender to inspections or face further UN action. The Bush Administration did not even let the inspections run their full course. Bush wanted his war, and he wasn't going to let WMD's stop him. The fact that he has cited other "reasons", post-facto the failed hunt for WMD's is evidence that he intended to push the war no matter what.

So, 12 years was not enough time?

Duh, Cfalk, unless you know something we don't, inspections weren't running for that 12 years. They ran after the '91 war, when Iraq did get rid of some munitions, then they ceased. And no, the amount of time Bush gave the UN Inspectors wasn't enough, but then the Adminnistration had the audacity, even after months of having Iraq in its possession, to beg the world for "patience" in finding WMD's. Hypocritical to say the least.

Inspections weren't going on for 12 years, so your cry of "12 years wasn't enough time" is inaccurate, to say the least.

This war should never have been fought when it was, under the circumstances that it came to be. Had the U.S. shown a little patience, and waited just one more year, or even six months, the U.S. would not have come out being seen as the bully. Instead of letting pressure build, and let Saddam look like the bully, the U.S. pre-empted the whole thing in it's haste to go to war, thus engendering a worldfull of comtempt.

[Edited 2004-03-08 17:03:15]
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:58 am

Duh, Cfalk, unless you know something we don't, inspections weren't running for that 12 years

Hmmm... 2003 minus 1991 = 12. Don't tell me that 1998-2002 do not count. Ask the Iraqis who starved to death during that time if they don't count. The U.N. simply was not effective in getting their people in there and with the ability to look wherever they wanted, when they wanted, how they wanted, and in the numbers needed.

I still consider it a logical impossibility for UNMOVIC to have declared Iraq weapons-free as long as Saddam was in power and the unaccounted for WMD materials fully accounted for by positive evidence. Positive evidence is, of course, not simply "we did not find any".

Let me remind you that those materials are still unaccounted for. I would still like to know where they are. Or are you willing to simply throw up your hands and assume that they have simply ceased to exist. That would be the lazy way out, but logically and morally untidy.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:05 am

Hmmm... 2003 minus 1991 = 12. Don't tell me that 1998-2002 do not count.

Charles, you're smarter than that, so don't play dumb. Physical inspections for banned munitions WAS NOT going on for 12 years. There was 12 years between 1991 and 2003, but after the inspections of '91, following the Gulf War, they ceased, did they not? And they didn't resume in earnest until early last year, then, when Bush decided it was time to go to war for some nice re-election PR, he told the UN to get lost, and to pull the inspectors out.

Let me remind you that those materials are still unaccounted for. I would still like to know where they are. Or are you willing to simply throw up your hands and assume that they have simply ceased to exist. That would be the lazy way out, but logically and morally untidy.

Maybe they're "unaccounted for" because they simply aren't there. The time has long passed when the credibility of these stockpiles of weapons that Bush, Blair, Powell, Rummey, et al, said were in Iraq has evaporated.

So what you're telling me that less than 3 months of UN inspections, that turned up nothing, I might add, is to be sloughed off, and was a waste of time, but we should give the Administration a blank check of time to find SOMETHING that will somehow justify the war? And what justifies it now, Charles, on the WMD end? One vial of anything? Maybe you're that gullible, but I am not.

[Edited 2004-03-08 17:07:58]
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:24 am

Maybe Alpha1 has a point. Let's see...add another 12 years to 2003; that would be, what, 2015 or thereabouts? Yeah, we should've let Saddam go until 2015 before we determined (against the UN's judgements, of course) that twenty-four years was enough time.

Did I say "enough"? "Enough" of this shit already! Regards...Jack
all best; jack
 
sfointern
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:19 am

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:39 am

Cptkrell, the reason why you can cite all these quotes from top Democrats doesn't really help your argument. They didn't expect to be downright LIED to be the President of the United States. After all, the White House did say they had "CIA intelligence" and countless other crap on this matter.

Maybe, Mr. Michigan Republican, you should pitstop your wagon and take a look outside and see what our disaster of a President has done to our great country in a mere four years.

*******
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein...The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Senator John Kerry, D-Mass, Jan 23, 2003.

...and countless other quotes retrievable if you take a minute to search.

"Pit-stop the tired wagon and put on some from fresh tires". Respectfully and humbly, myself, USA citizen, R-Mich, Mar 8, 2004.

Regards...Jack
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:21 am

Cptkrell, the reason why you can cite all these quotes from top Democrats doesn't really help your argument. They didn't expect to be downright LIED to be the President of the United States. After all, the White House did say they had "CIA intelligence" and countless other crap on this matter.

The Congress has access to all the intel the president has. It's the law. They did not depend on what the Prez told them.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:32 am

It is so nice to see that someone can copy and paste DNC talking points to create yet another anti-Bush thread.  Yeah sure
_____________________________________________________

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Saddam was the one required to prove he did not have any illegal weapons. For whatever reason he refused and he paid the price.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:35 am

in regard to your signature b757300
"Saddam was the one required to prove he did not have any illegal weapons. For whatever reason he refused and he paid the price"

does "in dubio pro reo" ring a bell? wait justice is only an obstacle for the "right" way anyway isnt it.
10=2
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:07 am

does "in dubio pro reo" ring a bell? wait justice is only an obstacle for the "right" way anyway isnt it.

English pls.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Cfalk

Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:27 am

It´s not generally known in the US?

It´s only the foundation of modern justice: "When in doubt, decide in favour of the accused!"
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:34 am

Sorry, but I dropped out of Latin some 25 years ago.

I remind you that Saddam/Iraq was not the "accused". They were the "guilty" - following Saddam's repeated attacks on neighbors and numerous uses of WMDs, and corresponding resolutions at the UN which declared him a menace to world society, and imposed on him the punishment of verifiably disarming.

Your proposal is like, if a paroled convict does not show up for his meeting with his parole officer, that's OK, because you must assume that he's not up to any trouble.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Cfalk

Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:51 am

Disarmament would have to be "credible", not "theoretically absolute" as some seem to believe.

And as it turns out, there were a few transgressions, most minor, one significant (the Al Samoud missile program);

But other than that, it has turned out that the early-1990s inspections were obviously highly effective in crippling the WMD programs Iraq has had before and the embargo and the pre-war inspections further cemented these limitations.

If the inspections would have run their course as intended, the result would have been - as far as we know by now - that Iraq did indeed have some prohibited activities for which a response would have been in order, but that response could certainly not have been an all-out war.

There would have been a basis to change the treatment of the Saddam regime and even impose more intrusive measures, but all that was blown to bits by the blustering Bush administration.

What we have now is just the confirmation of the validity of UNMOVICs work and the obvious inviability of the unilateral invasive approach.

All in all, were it not for the chaos and the victims of the invasion and the new hatred stirred up in large parts of the world, it would even be a positive development.
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)

Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:19 am

" They were the "guilty" "

to stick with english for now, i wonder how saddam was found guilty without having been on trial once?
saddam was a bastard and would have surely been deemed guilty in a fair trial.
but there has never been a trial, nor has there been an attempt to try him (for example on the ICJ).
hence saddam is not guilty, since you can not legally be guilty without trial.
10=2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 727LOVER, Airstud, salttee, seb146, WarRI1 and 7 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos