Disturbing Iraq News that isn't getting much press

[John Galt]

I'm surprised this news isn't getting much press in the U.S. Lots of international news agencies have made this a big deal. U.S. credibility has really been hurt abroad.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/spr...nts/index.html

[rexalllsc]

Who made the forgeries?
But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?

Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.

Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

[astralhaze]

As if the Bush administration needed any more diplomatic egg on its face.

[Buddy Grant]

So what if this evidence was proven to be a forgery, there are piles and piles of other evidence out there that are probably true - just check out the US Government website, that's all you need to see.

[astralhaze]

It's not the fact that removing this evidence weakens the case. The problem is that it makes the U.S. government look even worse in the eyes of the world community, which is becoming a huge problem.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm surprised this news isn't getting much press in the U.S.

Not sure I understand. It's being reported on CNN, Powell was already questioned about it on Meet the Press... where's the coverup? Seems like it's getting plenty of coverage.

Removing half of the evidence in the case against Iraq would still make Iraq look worse than the U.S. government by a long shot. Having half of the evidence proven as false does not make Iraq look like any less of an evil dictatorship nor does it make the U.S. look any more like liars. Although it is true that the world community may see our government otherwise it does not change how I see our government and it is our citizens viewpoints that matter most. The best solution to the growing problem of how the world sees us, in this particular situation, is a quick war that delivers swift justice. The sooner we end this the sooner the rest of the world can move on to hating us for other reasons. Unfortunate but true.

[JPhillips]

From the beginning I have said that Bush could convince me that war was necessary. I have never bought in to the oil for blood crap or the idea that Saddam can be contained forever. However, every time the US or Britain gets caught using or creating fale or misleading eveidence it really makes me doubt our position. If things are as bad as I have been told, why do we have to resort or half-truths and/or slim eveidence. Present the damn case for what it is and I will probably come on board.

I read a column by Friedman that said basically this same thing not long ago. He said that Bush should come right out and say this is a war of choice, but its a good choice. He should say that there are tremendous risks, but that the potential benefits are greater. He should say that this will probably invigorate Al Queada, but that we will have to except short term insecurity for long term security. Most importantly he should tell the American public that this war will require sacrifice. We can't pretend our dependence on foriegn oil doesn't make us less secure.

Instead Bush has tried to convince us that a balsa wood and duct tape remote controlled airplane with a five mile range is a grave threat. He has tried to convince us that Al Queada and Saddam are one in the same, a sort of Osaddam bin Hussdin. He has assured us that nothing can possibly go wrong and we will be in and out without pain or cost. He has tried to convince the world that there is no choice but a war.

We are in the worst possible situation now. We can't let Saddam off, but we may bring down the governments of Britain and Australia if we go in without UN approval. When will Bush be forced to answer why we let things get so out of control?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by JPhillips
When will Bush be forced to answer

next ellection time

[Easy Mac]

The media ask a real question, yeah right.

[Tarkus]

Why did I know this was going to be an anti-US post even before I opened it.

Tarkus

[JPhillips]

Tarkus: Explain to me how anything said here has been anti-US.

[Tarkus]

I was referring to the first post, which references an article that clearly knocks the US.

Tarkus

[AgPete]

Originally posted by JPhillips

I read a column by Friedman that said basically this same thing not long ago. He said that Bush should come right out and say this is a war of choice, but its a good choice. He should say that there are tremendous risks, but that the potential benefits are greater. He should say that this will probably invigorate Al Queada, but that we will have to except short term insecurity for long term security. Most importantly he should tell the American public that this war will require sacrifice. We can't pretend our dependence on foriegn oil doesn't make us less secure.

THIS is why we need guys like Clinton in the Oval Office. Screw politics, screw (no pun intended ) which interns so and so likes to bonk, we need brilliant men who know how to play the international PR game. Dubya's father got it, so did Clinton, with the exception of Colin Powell, Dubya's administration is clueless in these areas. JPhillips, you should write speeches for Dubya. I agree with everything you said and think he needs to be honest about this and stop preaching that it's a "war for freedom" or like you put it, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are the same people.

[oykib]

Is it just me, or does this point in history seem like the part of a game of Civilization where you are way ahead of all the other civs and they all decide to declare war on you at the same time?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Tarkus
I was referring to the first post, which references an article that clearly knocks the US.

Tarkus

The article knocks the U.S.? Huh? WTF are you talking about?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by astralhaze
The article knocks the U.S.? Huh? WTF are you talking about?

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq."

Yeah, it's not negative on the US at all. It just praises the hell out of our intelligence agencies. What a dumb shit I am.



Tarkus

[astralhaze]

So because the article states that documents the U.S. used in the case against Iraq it is anti-american? It is either true or false, ideology doesn't enter in to it. Were the Pentagon papers anti-american?

[Tarkus]

Don't pull semantics on me. The article clearly does not paint a positive view of the US and if you can't see that, there's nothing I'm going to say that going to help.

Tarkus

[astralhaze]

Semantics?????? Whu? If it doesn't paint a positive picture of the U.S., it is because the U.S. used forged documents in its case against Iraq. There is nothing anti-american about pointing that out. It is just a fact, or not, as the case may be. If you think the information presented is incorrect that is one thing, but simply presenting the information is ideologicaly neutral.

[Tarkus]

You know I'm pretty much done arguing with you. It's a pointless exercise for me. The title of the post is "Disturbing Iraq News that isn't getting much press." When I saw who had posted it I knew it wasn't going to be a pro US post, which it wasn't. If you can't see that I'm not going to argue it. Your political views are so opposite mine, and I so disagree with them, it's just not worth it. Even if I give you proof (no, I'm not going to argue this), you become a spin doctor to somehow try to twist things to your point of view.

Tarkus

[qmpz]

Am I the only one wondering why if the IAEA, a bunch of UN employees that supposed couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground according to some, can tell the documents are 'obvious' fakes, why can't US intelligence?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Tarkus
You know I'm pretty much done arguing with you. It's a pointless exercise for me. The title of the post is "Disturbing Iraq News that isn't getting much press." When I saw who had posted it I knew it wasn't going to be a pro US post, which it wasn't. If you can't see that I'm not going to argue it. Your political views are so opposite mine, and I so disagree with them, it's just not worth it. Even if I give you proof (no, I'm not going to argue this), you become a spin doctor to somehow try to twist things to your point of view.

Tarkus

I am not dissagreeing that the post was anti-U.S. I don't think the article was, however.

"I'm surprised this news isn't getting much press in the U.S. Lots of international news agencies have made this a big deal. U.S. credibility has really been hurt abroad."

Astralhaze, how is this post anti-U.S.???

[Taur]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm surprised this news isn't getting much press in the U.S.

You people are all a bunch of idiots!!! Let me clue you in on something that your parents should of told you along time ago.

---Money makes the world go around---

The media is gambling very heavy on this war. They have already spent millions of dollars. They have already sent thousands of employees to cover this event. They have backorderd tons of extra paper. "No War" could cause some media companies to fall. But, A major war will sell millions of papers and drive news rating through the roof.

Cable news channels will see their ratings go into the double digits, and prime time news channels will have "Friends" type ratings without "Friends" type expenses. I have already hear that CBS will not be airing this years NCAA finals, but will be selling off its right to other smaller cable channells so it can go "live" with the war.

War is big business for the media. And the end of WAR could cause the airways to go silent. Right now all the media reports I watch on TV sound very much like all those religious nuts did in 1999. Stay tuned as the war is going to happen any day now.

---Money makes the world go around---

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Taur
You people are all a bunch of idiots!!!

Excellent way to start a post!

That statement really makes me want to listen to what you have to say. Really.





Seriously, it does. I mean it.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Who made the forgeries?
But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?

Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.

Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

rexallsc, you are missing the point. This isn't about the U.S. forging the documents, it is about the U.S. using obviously falsified documents to make their case against Iraq. Powell used these papers as absolute proof to the world and Bush referred to them in his speech about Iraq. The fact that these documents were obvious fakes and still used demonstrates either extreme negligence or incompetence on behalf of U.S. intelligence and policymakers. That is why U.S. credibility has been seriously hurt on the matter.

So what if this evidence was proven to be a forgery, there are piles and piles of other evidence out there that are probably true - just check out the US Government website, that's all you need to see.

On the nuclear weapons issue, the evidence since the Gulf War is extremely thin. And if there was "piles and piles" of evidence, why did the U.S. choose to use obvious forgeries?

Not sure I understand. It's being reported on CNN, Powell was already questioned about it on Meet the Press... where's the coverup? Seems like it's getting plenty of coverage.

I'm not saying there was a coverup, just that this was frontpage news in South Korea, Japan, Germany, and (yes) France. I'm sure other places had it front and center too - I just happen to know from people in those 4 countries that it is a big deal for those nations. Yet, here, I had to search for the news story and Meet the Press is not watched by that many people (and it was just one or two questions).

Why did I know this was going to be an anti-US post even before I opened it.

See Couriers post below. This is an issue that should be considered important whether you are pro or anti-war. And being anti-war is not even in the same ballpark as being anti-US.

Yeah, it's not negative on the US at all. It just praises the hell out of our intelligence agencies. What a dumb shit I am.

You said it. So any article that criticizes US intelligence agencies is anti-US? There is no one disputing that these documents were forgeries - it isn't like this is the Iraqi news agency. Quit being an ostrich and get your head out of the sand.

You people are all a bunch of idiots!!! Let me clue you in on something that your parents should of told you along time ago.

Wow - that was insightful - money makes the world go around. I've never heard that before - you should really publish that - I mean your originality and incredible vision should be shared with the world at large.

Originally posted by John Galt
Wow - that was insightful - money makes the world go around. I've never heard that before - you should really publish that - I mean your originality and incredible vision should be shared with the world at large.

I have called you on a couple of issues that we have disagreed on in the past, as you are probably more than aware of and hopefully do not take as personal attacks, however you could not have said this any better. It is funny how those calling others idiots are usually the idiots themselves.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by KWhit
rexallsc, you are missing the point. This isn't about the U.S. forging the documents, it is about the U.S. using obviously falsified documents to make their case against Iraq. Powell used these papers as absolute proof to the world and Bush referred to them in his speech about Iraq. The fact that these documents were obvious fakes and still used demonstrates either extreme negligence or incompetence on behalf of U.S. intelligence and policymakers. That is why U.S. credibility has been seriously hurt on the matter.

Understood. John, I have a question for you:

Yes or No: Iraq would be likely, or may have already sold terrorist groups chemical or bio weapons.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by couriers
"I'm surprised this news isn't getting much press in the U.S. Lots of international news agencies have made this a big deal. U.S. credibility has really been hurt abroad."

Astralhaze, how is this post anti-U.S.???

I didn't say that it was. I just said that I wasn't disputing whether it was.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Understood. John, I have a question for you:

Yes or No: Iraq would be likely, or may have already sold terrorist groups chemical or bio weapons.

May have already? I have no idea.

Would likely? I doubt it, but I am absolutely positive you will disagree.

Sorry I must have misinterpreted the phrase, "not disagreeing" with "agreeing" to the post as anti-U.S.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by couriers
Sorry I must have misinterpreted the phrase, "not disagreeing" with "agreeing" to the post as anti-U.S.

I can see why you would have. I should have been more clear.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by astralhaze
May have already? I have no idea.

Would likely? I doubt it, but I am absolutely positive you will disagree.

Yep. He can't produce documentation that he's destroyed his anhtrax. The guy is a menace and needs to be removed.

Originally posted by astralhaze
I can see why you would have. I should have been more clear.

I was just surprised to hear that considering your stance on the whole issue regarding the article as non-anti-U.S.

[Nirvanamats]

I think it's very clear that the media is avoiding and burying most stories that may oppose the views of the bush camp on this war. I just love all this current sentiment that any story that dosen't call this aggressive action heroic must be anti-american and against our troops. Freedom of speach exists, in part, to allow for opposition views and to prevent the emergence of tyrants. Whenever someone starts to say that this administration may itself actually be acting in a tyranical fashion, ignoring so many of it's citizens and approaching foreign policy with a badly veiled blood lust there shot down for being crazy. I love this country, I just think we have a bunch of secretive, uncaring bastards are running it.

Where did the whole concept come from that a person dosen't love their country if they don't like the way it is currently being run? I love my little brother but I'll tell him if he's doing something stupid, does that then make me hate my brother?