| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: White House 'buried British intelligence on Iraq WMDs' |
 |
|
From The TimesAugust 6, 2008
White House 'buried British intelligence on Iraq WMDs'
(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
Tony Blair and George Bush both saw intelligence contradicting the rationale for invading Iraq, a new book claims
Tim Reid in Washington and Sam Coates in London
MI6 told Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq that a high-placed Iraqi source said that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was passed to the US but was buried by the White House, according to a new book.
The book claimed that the former Prime Minister sent a top British spy to the Middle East in 2003 � three months before the invasion � to dig up enough intelligence to avoid war but that President Bush and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, dismissed any claims or possible evidence that would stop military action.
In The Way of the World, the Pulitzer prize-winning author Ron Suskind also claimed that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a backdated, handwritten letter purportedly from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam. The letter, which came to light nine months after the invasion, was meant to demonstrate a link between the Baathist regime and al-Qaeda.
The forgery, adamantly denied by the White House, was passed to a British journalist in Baghdad and written about as if genuine by The Sunday Telegraph on December 14, 2003. The article received significant attention in the US and provided the White House with a new rationale for the invasion, Suskind claimed. The White House called the allegation absurd.
POWERCORRUPTION |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:13 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| I bet that's what Batman woulda done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clinton lied and no one died.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Clinton lied and no one died. |
Too bad, that's incorrect. He lied and people died when he pulled a "Wag the Dog" scenario and ordered airstrikes.
And Adventurer your avatar is inappropriate, offensive and breaks forum rules in terms of size and content...or is that Kevin up to his tricks again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aarontendo
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Location: Daegu-ish
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I thought his avatar was awesome and a moment of truth that he wanted to share with everyone ;p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Too bad, that's incorrect. He lied and people died when he pulled a "Wag the Dog" scenario and ordered airstrikes.
|
What Wag the Dog scenerio are you talking about?
Kosovo? Sudan? Afghanistan?
I mean I know you think you sound intelligent by using that phrase, but just what did you expect Clinton to do during those events?
Nothing?
Clinton had to take on the Serbs. Do you disagree with this? How about his bombings in the Sudan and Afghanistan. He had to do something after the East Africa embassy bombings as well as the suicide bombing of the USS Cole.
I mean, what exactly are you inferring to when you say "Wag the Dog"? Or is it just an empty slogan in which you have no clue as to the events at the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
| Clinton lied and no one died. |
Too bad, that's incorrect. He lied and people died when he pulled a "Wag the Dog" scenario and ordered airstrikes.
And Adventurer your avatar is inappropriate, offensive and breaks forum rules in terms of size and content...or is that Kevin up to his tricks again? |
I think Kevin has something against me or something. I am not sure what gives. He changed my avatar. I reported it to the moderators.
I don't like being messed with like that. I don't write stuff like Korea is satan. I changed my password. Someone let the mods know or whatever if you see this happen again. I am not sure what the heck is goin' on.
As far as Kevin, I have an old slogan to throw at him from the old days of Brittania "Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense". People know I wouldn't have such an avatar. I don't know much about this Kevin fellow except that he seems like some nut case who is trying to wreak havoc on this here site.
Last edited by Adventurer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Is this Kevin guy the owner of What the Book? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Too bad, that's incorrect. He lied and people died when he pulled a "Wag the Dog" scenario and ordered airstrikes.
|
What Wag the Dog scenerio are you talking about?
Kosovo? Sudan? Afghanistan?
I mean I know you think you sound intelligent by using that phrase, but just what did you expect Clinton to do during those events?
First of all you don't know what I think. And "Wag the Dog" is a well known phrase and liberally applied to Clinton
It was Clinton's timing that was suspect. He did nothing until Lewinsky had finished her testimony and then suddenly "Wham, Blam, look Ma I'm bombing those thugs." And then he did it again later, when he was close to being impeached.
Nothing?
Clinton had to take on the Serbs. Do you disagree with this? How about his bombings in the Sudan and Afghanistan. He had to do something after the East Africa embassy bombings as well as the suicide bombing of the USS Cole.
I mean, what exactly are you inferring to when you say "Wag the Dog"? Or is it just an empty slogan in which you have no clue as to the events at the time. |
If you'd Googled, you'd have found the answer. He was using it as a way to detract attention from his affair with Lewinsky...at the very least that's the way it looked. Info on this is widely available...so I don't know what you're going on about...I find it hard to believe you are unaware of this.
But because I'm feeling especially compassionate today here's a link
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| endo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Too bad, that's incorrect. He lied and people died when he pulled a "Wag the Dog" scenario and ordered airstrikes.
|
What Wag the Dog scenerio are you talking about?
Kosovo? Sudan? Afghanistan?
I mean I know you think you sound intelligent by using that phrase, but just what did you expect Clinton to do during those events?
First of all you don't know what I think. And "Wag the Dog" is a well known phrase and liberally applied to Clinton
It was Clinton's timing that was suspect. He did nothing until Lewinsky had finished her testimony and then suddenly "Wham, Blam, look Ma I'm bombing those thugs." And then he did it again later, when he was close to being impeached.
Nothing?
Clinton had to take on the Serbs. Do you disagree with this? How about his bombings in the Sudan and Afghanistan. He had to do something after the East Africa embassy bombings as well as the suicide bombing of the USS Cole.
I mean, what exactly are you inferring to when you say "Wag the Dog"? Or is it just an empty slogan in which you have no clue as to the events at the time. |
If you'd Googled, you'd have found the answer. He was using it as a way to detract attention from his affair with Lewinsky...at the very least that's the way it looked. Info on this is widely available...so I don't know what you're going on about...I find it hard to believe you are unaware of this.
But because I'm feeling especially compassionate today here's a link
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/ |
I know exactly what you're referring to in regards to the Lewinsky affair.
What I was arguing and what you failed to see that Clinton didn't just act irrationally and start bombing people.
There were legitimate reasons as to why he targeted those specific areas.
So again, are you suggesting that Clinton and his staff ordered bombings on three different continents (Serbia/Europe, Sudan/Africa, Afghanistan/Asia) in order to deflect public attention from his own personal problems?
Do you really think everyone else (the Generals, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defence, ect...) would of gone along with it?
I mean come on man! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| endo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Too bad, that's incorrect. He lied and people died when he pulled a "Wag the Dog" scenario and ordered airstrikes.
|
What Wag the Dog scenerio are you talking about?
Kosovo? Sudan? Afghanistan?
I mean I know you think you sound intelligent by using that phrase, but just what did you expect Clinton to do during those events?
First of all you don't know what I think. And "Wag the Dog" is a well known phrase and liberally applied to Clinton
It was Clinton's timing that was suspect. He did nothing until Lewinsky had finished her testimony and then suddenly "Wham, Blam, look Ma I'm bombing those thugs." And then he did it again later, when he was close to being impeached.
Nothing?
Clinton had to take on the Serbs. Do you disagree with this? How about his bombings in the Sudan and Afghanistan. He had to do something after the East Africa embassy bombings as well as the suicide bombing of the USS Cole.
I mean, what exactly are you inferring to when you say "Wag the Dog"? Or is it just an empty slogan in which you have no clue as to the events at the time. |
If you'd Googled, you'd have found the answer. He was using it as a way to detract attention from his affair with Lewinsky...at the very least that's the way it looked. Info on this is widely available...so I don't know what you're going on about...I find it hard to believe you are unaware of this.
But because I'm feeling especially compassionate today here's a link
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/ |
I know exactly what you're referring to in regards to the Lewinsky affair.
What I was arguing and what you failed to see that Clinton didn't just act irrationally and start bombing people.
There were legitimate reasons as to why he targeted those specific areas.
So again, are you suggesting that Clinton and his staff ordered bombings on three different continents (Serbia/Europe, Sudan/Africa, Afghanistan/Asia) in order to deflect public attention from his own personal problems?
Do you really think everyone else (the Generals, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defence, ect...) would of gone along with it?
I mean come on man! |
Yes there were legitimate reasons to target those areas...I never said there weren't which is why everyone else when What I said, and the article gave the timeline, was that the timing of such attacks was quite wag-the-dogish. Once is maybe concidence but twice is pushing it.
I mean he had all that time to act and now just when he needs to devote the most time to his own personal problems, he (not once but twice) decides to add to an already full plate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ Alright fair enough. I still disagree, but I guess I can see where you're comming from.
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, i don't think we put much, if any, trust in Brit intelligence nowadays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hehe, no trust in British intelligence, that makes me laugh. The CIA gets things so much more right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Hehe, no trust in British intelligence, that makes me laugh. The CIA gets things so much more right. |
And boy the CIA was either very stupid or their intelligence was poorly read by the White House. Actually, both were stupid. Just the other day Rice said they got it wrong, but you know, they indended it to be wrong.
Never before in my life have I seen a government so bent on making things up and a population soaking it all in. When Powel held that vial of a powder befor the UN, do you really think he blieved it? Powel is a great man, but he wasn't convinced himself, and that is why the director of the CIA was asked to sit behind him. Powel was just another pawn in the scheme of things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
