UN ... worthless?

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19609
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

UN ... worthless?

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

CNN Breaking News wrote:Diplomats say Iran has refused U.N. inspectors access to its underground nuclear site, The Associated Press reports.
In addition to the breaking news, very few of the thousands of troops the UN promised have arrived in Lebanon. Many of the Europeans crying for the violence to stop have pledged few (if any troops).

The question I ask today is "What role does the UN serve in today's society?".

I don't know about you, but it doesn't serve much purpose. The UN reminds me of me old workplace. We had meetings, meetings about meetings, meetings on action items, and meetings on the same action items. End result? A loss in productivity and a general waste of time. Does the UN serve a purpose that I don't see?
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26313
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Post by Bubba »

The organization, if nothing else, provides a vehicle for discussion and action among nations. Sometimes the UN works, sometimes not. The UN is doing manageable peacekeeping/nation building work in some places but not in others. As for Lebanon, the problem with nations sending troops is that their mandate is not yet clear and countries don't want to make commitments without first understanding the role they will play. The rules of engagement have to be defined.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
ski_adk
Bumper
Posts: 505
Joined: Nov 16th, '04, 21:21

Post by ski_adk »

The UN is only as effective as the member states want it to be. Like any democratic organization, the UN can only have teeth if participants give it teeth. If the organization makes a decision and the membership doesn't abide, you're stuck with 2 options. Make the membership abide (which the UN can't do) or do nothing and allow the organization to fall apart.

I can't fault the UN. It was a great idea whose time had come -- especially in the face of nuclear war. However, if the member states of the UN aren't going to legitimately back the organization, then there's nothing that can be done. The house is only as good as the foundation it rests on.
BigKahuna13
Site Admin
Posts: 6488
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
Location: Under the Boardwalk
Contact:

Post by BigKahuna13 »

Bubba wrote:The organization, if nothing else, provides a vehicle for discussion and action among nations. Sometimes the UN works, sometimes not. The UN is doing manageable peacekeeping/nation building work in some places but not in others. As for Lebanon, the problem with nations sending troops is that their mandate is not yet clear and countries don't want to make commitments without first understanding the role they will play. The rules of engagement have to be defined.
Interesting. According to today's Time's editorial page, France had promised to send a significant number of troops as well as lead the effort in Lebanon. But France's generals are balking because there's no clear mission statement. Funny since France was one of the architects of the
ceasefire agreement.
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre


Image
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19609
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

BigKahuna13 wrote:
Bubba wrote:The organization, if nothing else, provides a vehicle for discussion and action among nations. Sometimes the UN works, sometimes not. The UN is doing manageable peacekeeping/nation building work in some places but not in others. As for Lebanon, the problem with nations sending troops is that their mandate is not yet clear and countries don't want to make commitments without first understanding the role they will play. The rules of engagement have to be defined.
Interesting. According to today's Time's editorial page, France had promised to send a significant number of troops as well as lead the effort in Lebanon. But France's generals are balking because there's no clear mission statement. Funny since France was one of the architects of the ceasefire agreement.
Seems to me this is Europeans time to shine and show the international community that they don't make empty promises.

As for the UN ... I think it's moved from being as effective as it once was. It's rather a consortium or think tank.
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26313
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Post by Bubba »

BigKahuna13 wrote:
Bubba wrote:The organization, if nothing else, provides a vehicle for discussion and action among nations. Sometimes the UN works, sometimes not. The UN is doing manageable peacekeeping/nation building work in some places but not in others. As for Lebanon, the problem with nations sending troops is that their mandate is not yet clear and countries don't want to make commitments without first understanding the role they will play. The rules of engagement have to be defined.
Interesting. According to today's Time's editorial page, France had promised to send a significant number of troops as well as lead the effort in Lebanon. But France's generals are balking because there's no clear mission statement. Funny since France was one of the architects of the
ceasefire agreement.
The French have a lot of history with Lebanon and they have been strong supporters of Lebanon over the years, including pushing with us to get Syria out of there two years ago. The French did lead the push for a workable ceasefire but that was only phase I and now, with the need for a resolution defining the peacekeepers' mandate still being debated, their military is understandably reluctant to commit thousands of troops without understanding their role. Nobody wants to go in with unclear rules of engagement, especially when one looks at the history of our forces having been there as peacekeepers in the early 1980s.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
BigKahuna13
Site Admin
Posts: 6488
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:10
Location: Under the Boardwalk
Contact:

Post by BigKahuna13 »

Bubba wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
Bubba wrote:The organization, if nothing else, provides a vehicle for discussion and action among nations. Sometimes the UN works, sometimes not. The UN is doing manageable peacekeeping/nation building work in some places but not in others. As for Lebanon, the problem with nations sending troops is that their mandate is not yet clear and countries don't want to make commitments without first understanding the role they will play. The rules of engagement have to be defined.
Interesting. According to today's Time's editorial page, France had promised to send a significant number of troops as well as lead the effort in Lebanon. But France's generals are balking because there's no clear mission statement. Funny since France was one of the architects of the
ceasefire agreement.
The French have a lot of history with Lebanon and they have been strong supporters of Lebanon over the years, including pushing with us to get Syria out of there two years ago. The French did lead the push for a workable ceasefire but that was only phase I and now, with the need for a resolution defining the peacekeepers' mandate still being debated, their military is understandably reluctant to commit thousands of troops without understanding their role. Nobody wants to go in with unclear rules of engagement, especially when one looks at the history of our forces having been there as peacekeepers in the early 1980s.
No disagreement here. Times' point is why wasn't the mandate worked out as part of the ceasefire? Seems to me that having a ceasefire which will probably be broken at will until peacekeepers are in place is in some ways worse than a continuation of hostilities.
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre


Image
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19609
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Bubba wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
Bubba wrote:The organization, if nothing else, provides a vehicle for discussion and action among nations. Sometimes the UN works, sometimes not. The UN is doing manageable peacekeeping/nation building work in some places but not in others. As for Lebanon, the problem with nations sending troops is that their mandate is not yet clear and countries don't want to make commitments without first understanding the role they will play. The rules of engagement have to be defined.
Interesting. According to today's Time's editorial page, France had promised to send a significant number of troops as well as lead the effort in Lebanon. But France's generals are balking because there's no clear mission statement. Funny since France was one of the architects of the
ceasefire agreement.
The French have a lot of history with Lebanon and they have been strong supporters of Lebanon over the years, including pushing with us to get Syria out of there two years ago. The French did lead the push for a workable ceasefire but that was only phase I and now, with the need for a resolution defining the peacekeepers' mandate still being debated, their military is understandably reluctant to commit thousands of troops without understanding their role. Nobody wants to go in with unclear rules of engagement, especially when one looks at the history of our forces having been there as peacekeepers in the early 1980s.
So why over-promise? Usually I've foung that an under-promise over-deliver is a better rule of thumb. This cease-fire won't keep if all of the promises made are empty, IMHO.
Cityskier
Wanted Poster
Posts: 3165
Joined: Nov 8th, '04, 11:08
Location: NYC

Post by Cityskier »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:So why over-promise?
Apparently they are mimicing our approach to Iraq.
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19609
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Cityskier wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:So why over-promise?
Apparently they are mimicing our approach to Iraq.
Maybe ... what did we promise?
Talisman
Black Carver
Posts: 369
Joined: Mar 10th, '05, 07:22
Location: New England, Ayup

Post by Talisman »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:[

Maybe ... what did we promise?
I think Bush & Co promised:

Not another Viet Nam, the body counts out of Iraq give an eerie de ja vu for old timers like me.

Weapons of mass destruction, none so far!

Fight international terrorism, who knows if this goal will be met?

Establish democracy, which is unclear right now.

Capture Saddam which has happened!
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19609
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Talisman wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:[

Maybe ... what did we promise?
I think Bush & Co promised:

Not another Viet Nam, the body counts out of Iraq give an eerie de ja vu for old timers like me.

Weapons of mass destruction, none so far!

Fight international terrorism, who knows if this goal will be met?

Establish democracy, which is unclear right now.

Capture Saddam which has happened!
He never promised 'not another vietnam'. If we did (not to make light of the situation) we're far from it. 58148 > 2605

"None so far" - this promise is still open.

Fight Terrorism - this promise is still open

Establish Democracy - this promise is still open

Capture Saddam - Promise kept

So after you listed the promises ... one was kept, one is untrue, and three are still in progress. I fail to see how we 'over promised and under delivered'.
Cityskier
Wanted Poster
Posts: 3165
Joined: Nov 8th, '04, 11:08
Location: NYC

Post by Cityskier »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I fail to see how we 'over promised and under delivered'.
Claims and Facts: Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections

SADDAM-AL QAEDA CONNECTION


CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

CLAIM: “The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

CLAIM: “Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

CLAIM: “You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02

CLAIM: “There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03

CLAIM: “There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

FACT: According to documents, "Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

FACT: "CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]

FACT: “Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” [National Journal, 8/9/03]

FACT: Declassified documents “undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.” [LA Times, 7/19/03].

FACT: “The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” [NY Times, 6/27/03]

FACT: "U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.'" [LA Times, 11/4/02]

SADDAM-9/11 CONNECTION


CLAIM: “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/16/03

FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

FACT: Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 “I think it's not surprising that people make that connection” between Saddam and 9/11- with no evidence to back up his claim.

FACT: Two days after Cheney made that statement, Reuters reported on 9/18/03 that “President Bush distanced himself from the comments.”

Claims and Facts: Terror 'Threats' and Responses

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION


CLAIM: “We found the weapons of mass destruction.”

– President Bush, 5/29/03

CLAIM: "We know where the WMDs are.”

– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

CLAIM: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”

– President Bush, 3/19/03

FACT: No WMD have been found. According to Reuters on 9/15/03 , the Administration's hand picked weapons inspector has come up with no WMD on his visit to Iraq. “A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March.” (Note: the chemical weapons Bush was referring to at the time never materialized.)

FACT: Despite the claim that Iraq's supposed WMD posed an imminent threat to the U.S., Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 2/24/01 that Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

THE IRAQI 'THREAT'

CLAIM: “The president knew that [Iraq] was a threat.”

- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/24/03

CLAIM: On 10/7/02 , Bush gave a speech entitled “President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat.” He said, “Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat. The threat comes from Iraq. America must not ignore the threat gathering against us.”

FACT: Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.”

FACT: Powell said on 2/23/012/24/01e threatens not the United States.” , “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” He then said on , “[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” and that “h

IRAQ NUCLEAR WEAPONS

CLAIM: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush, 1/28/03

CLAIM: “We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03

FACT: On 7/8/03, the W. Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. “Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere” made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation [7/20/03]. In fact, “CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference” removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]

FACT: The UN reported on 9/8/03 that Iraq was not capable of pursuing an active nuclear weapons program after 1991. The report said “"No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq.”

FACT: Voice of America reported on 9/16/03 that, “A senior official in Iraq's new science ministry says the country never revived its nuclear program after inspectors dismantled it in the 1990's.” The scientist, now a member of the U.S.-backed administration in Iraq, “says Iraqi scientists had no way to re-start the program because the inspectors took away all the necessary resources.”

WAR ON TERROR/BUSH DOCTRINE

CLAIM: “All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

CLAIM: “We have made clear the doctrine which says, if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you hide a terrorist you're just as guilty as the terrorist. We're holding regimes accountable for harboring and supporting terror.” – President Bush, 9/10/03

FACT: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis. But the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government “not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.”

Claims and Facts: Pre-War Assertions vs David Kay's Report

NUCLEAR WEAPONS


CLAIM: “Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” - President Bush, 10/7/02

CLAIM: “[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”- VP Cheney, 3/24/02

CLAIM: “We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” - VP Cheney, 3/16/03

CLAIM: “We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02

CLAIM: “Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 7/11/03

“We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.”

- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LAB

CLAIM: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

-President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

CLAIM: “We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

CLAIM: “Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.” –President Bush, 2/8/03

CLAIM: “I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now.” - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

“We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort…Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.”

- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CAPABILITY


CLAIM: “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Colin Powell, 2/5/03

CLAIM: “[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” --Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

CLAIM: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” –Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

CLAIM: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” –President Bush, 9/26/02

CLAIM: “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” –President Bush, 1/28/03

CLAIM: “His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.” – Don Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.”

- Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Claims and Facts: War Costs & Post-War Planning

PRE-WAR COST ESTIMATES

CLAIM: Iraq will be “ an affordable endeavor ” that “ will not require sustained aid ” and will “be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion .” – Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]

CLAIM: “Costs of any such intervention would be very small.” - Top White House Economist Glen Hubbard [CNBC, 10/4/02]

CLAIM: Paul Wolfowitz “dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year.” [NY Times, 2/28/03 ]

CLAIM: “In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues…The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” – USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03

FACT: The Bush Administration has requested approximately $166B – including $87B in Sept. 2003 - for operations in Iraq, despite firing top economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for suggesting (accurately) before the war that a war in Iraq would cost at least $100 to $200 billion of dollars.

FACT: The Bush Administration has requested $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq – despite the pledge that the U.S. would only fund $1.7 billion.

FACT: Wolfowitz contradicted his 2/28/03 statement on 9/10/03 , saying “No one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive.”

FACT: Only on 9/22/03 – months after the war - did the Administration acknowledge that, under international law, the U.S. will inherit “roughly $200 billion in debt” from Iraq. [CongressDaily]

PRE-WAR OIL REVENUE ESTIMATES

CLAIM: “The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]

CLAIM: “Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” – White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, 2/18/03

FACT: International Oil Daily reported on 9/23/03 that Paul Bremer said that current and future oil revenues will be insufficient for rebuilding Iraq – despite the Administration's pre-war promises.

FACT: The WSJ reported on 9/5/03 that the Administration's oil estimates were “predicated on aggressively optimistic assumptions.”

FACT: While Bremer told Oil Daily that “Iraqi oil infrastructure was much worse than we thought,” a March 2000 report by the U.N. clearly said Iraq oil would be insufficient. The report said the Iraqi oil industry was “lamentable” and that the decline was “accelerating.” Roger Dowan of PFC Energy told NPR on 9/11/03 that the U.N. study the “made very clear that actually the facilities and the capacity to produce oil in Iraq” were far less than the Administration was portraying.

FACT: The NY Times reported on 10/5/03 “The Bush administration's optimistic statements earlier this year that Iraq's oil wealth, not American taxpayers, would cover most of the cost of rebuilding Iraq were at odds with a bleaker assessment of a government task force secretly established last fall to study Iraq's oil industry.”

POST-WAR PLANNING

CLAIM: “I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again…and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed.” – Vice President Cheney, [ 9/14/03 ]

FACT: The Wash Times White House officials “acknowledge that their post-Saddam plan for rebuilding Iraq has been substantially flawed on the security front. Some officials said privately that the plan for security after Baghdad's fall has been an utter failure.” [8/28/03]

FACT: “A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff blames setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process” in which “officials, , conceded in recent weeks that the Bush administration failed to predict the guerrilla war against American troops in Iraq.” [W. Times, 9/3/03 ]

RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS


CLAIM: In response to questions about whether his tenure as CEO of Halliburton had to do with the company winning billions worth of no-bid contracts, VP Cheney said “I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years.” [ 9/14/03 ]

FACT: Cheney receives up to $1 million a year from Halliburton and a $20 million retirement package from Halliburton. [UK Guardian, NY Times]

Claims and Facts: War Predictions

LENGTH OF MILITARY OPERATIONS

CLAIM: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03

CLAIM: The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

CLAIM “We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

FACT: The war in Iraq is still going on, and more American troops have been killed after “major combat operations” supposedly ended than before.

TROOP DEPLOYMENT NEEDS

CLAIM: “What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03

CLAIM: “The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03

FACT: The nonpartisan CBO reported on 9/3/03 that “The Army does not have enough active-duty component forces” to do what is required in Iraq – meaning the U.S. needs to increase its deployment above the 150,000 currently in Iraq. That confirms General Erik Shinseki's estimate that it would take “several hundred thousand troops.” [2/25/03]

FACT: The Administration is trying to stretch the current deployment too thin. As reported on 8/24/03 , for the first time since Vietnam, the military will “have to start serving back-to-back overseas tours of up to a year.”

http://www.americanprogress.org/Account ... CT1029.HTM


MISMANAGED, MISGUIDED, and MISREPRESENTED. You and I and ESPECIALLY the kids in the trenches deserve much better. This administration has exhibited abysmal ineptitude across the board. It amazes me that people are too fukcing stupid to realize it.
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 19609
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

I don't have time to look through all of that material, but in general, I get your point. Although many of these (dare I say) 'promises' (notions/facts?) were widely held throughout the intelligence World. Heck, even John Kerry himself was repeating the same dialog posted above. Furthermore, the blame of this war can rest soley on the administration, congress, the CIA and other intelligence offices, Britain, and the UN.

One example I found (first I looked for):
http://www.americanprogress.org/ wrote:CLAIM: “Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98060,00.html wrote:The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. The Security Council was right to be alarmed ... The Security Council was right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so.
Obviously reading the statement in full reads much differently. I don't think you can dispute that quote when used in its original context.

Another example:
http://www.americanprogress.org/ wrote:CLAIM: “We found the weapons of mass destruction.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html wrote:THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
Again, it hard to argue the quote when put in context. While we certainly didn't find WMD's, we did discover laboratories in violation of UN resolutions.

Looking behind americanprogress we see ...

Carol Browner - Clinton Admin Appointee
Peter B. Lewis - Liberal Philanthropist, friend of John Soros and second biggest contributor to left-wing 527 groups.
Cheryl Mills - part of the White House Deputy council and the defense of Clinton to which he lied underoath
Aryeh Neier - Outspoken human rights activist and oppenent of the GWB admin.

I can't say that I don't understand your point, because I do. However, for someone who enjoys chastising me for seeing "only one side" ... you sure have a fascinating selection when you're looking for "facts". First, it was the derisory truthout and now this. Do you view the ‘other side of things’ or do you just enjoy reprimanding me for not seeing it your way? Which is it?

Given what we knew before the war, I still think we made the right move. Although the lack of planning is laughable and unacceptable. If you asked me today if we should have attacked, I'd say no, we shouldn't have. I'm tired of hearing GWB lied to the American people, because if that's the case, so did John Kerry, Murtha, Kennedy, Clinton (Hil and Bill), Edwards, and I could go on for hours.

Hopefully the conflict is over soon, but it doesn't look like it will be in the near future.
Cityskier
Wanted Poster
Posts: 3165
Joined: Nov 8th, '04, 11:08
Location: NYC

Post by Cityskier »

You can argue semantics all day long, but that won't solve anything. I was just looking for a quick example of certain representations that were made. It was all a bunch of sh*t. That doesn't mean we walk away like some are suggesting, but at a minimum we should hold those who caused this mess accountable for their actions.

It has turned into a very costly series of missteps. Whether you measure by dollars, lives lost, or credibility lost, this country has paid a huge price.
Post Reply