Thadius
Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Anyone that watched the news knows that dubya's claims of "Iraqi WMD's" was false, Iraqi support of Al Qaeda was false, and Iraqi support of other terrorist organizations was also false. Go to fact check. org and learn for yourself.
There is also the point that it was a Bush administration report that stated that deepwater offshore drilling had no risk, Bush was the president that authorized deepwater drilling after ending the Presidential Moratorium on offshore drilling.
Finally there is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-prexy.4.16321064.html?_r=1
quote:
These experts, from both political parties, say Bush's early personnel choices and overarching antipathy toward regulation created a climate that, if it did not trigger the turmoil, almost certainly aggravated it. The president's first two Treasury secretaries, for instance, lacked the kind of Wall Street expertise that might have helped them raise red flags about the use of complex financial instruments at the heart of the crisis.To his credit, Bush accurately foresaw the danger posed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and began calling as early as 2002 for greater regulation of the mortgage giants. But experts say the administration could have done even more to curb excesses in the housing market, and much more to police Wall Street, which transmitted those problems around the world.
Afternoon,
Just got home from a very interesting trip and dropped in to see what ya'll have been up to. While reading the topic, I came across this post and figured it would be as a good a place as any to start. So here we go.
Your first point is just wrong, even if we ignore the intelligence reports from the US, UK, Russia and others there is proof (the actual munitions) of WMDs in Iraq, but it seems easier to just go with the flow and claim that there were none. I will point you to just one of many reports that started being released and unclassified 4 years ago.
quote:
Sarin and Mustard Gas Munitions
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
<snip>
quote:
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.
When it comes to your second and third points, I don't think there will ever be any proof one way or the other as to which terrorist organizations received aid (or even how much) from the Ba'thist party. All we have is rationalizations of what would or would not make sense, and unfortunately not much about that regime was rational or made sense. The man had a decade to simply comply with inspections and make honest declarations about what they had in violation of a cease fire he himself agreed to, and he fought it tooth and nail until the end. I simply suggest that we can look at the move he made from a secular regime pre Desert Shield + Storm to changing the flag to include Religious statements post cease fire. The paying of "martyrs'" families a bounty for the murder and mayhem caused by the bombers. Further, there is proof that at least some of the top ranking members of Al Qaeda made numerous trips to Iraq, Iraqi intelligence met with Al Qaeda on numerous occasions in Sudan, the Czech Republic, and Afghanistan. There are also claims of Ambassador Kijazi (head of Iraqi intelligence) meeting with Osama in Afghanistan. The enemy of my enemy theory would make sense, however that is just speculation, just as is much of intelligence work. To claim there was no relationship would seem to be naive at best.
Finally, to your remark about the Bush administration claiming there was no risk to off shore drilling. You do realize that there was a lapse in regulations on it as of Nov 2000, the Bush administration and Congress passed a pretty comprehensive bill in 2005, and that the Interior Dept, Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission and MMS were supposed to be monitoring the safety and sustainability of the leases? That these departments/agencies have(had) exclusive jurisdiction over any siting, construction, expansion, and operation of any facility that imports or exports... Oh and wasn't it our current president that just lifted the ban on off shore drilling in March?
Anyways, the point of all of this is that there is plenty of blame to go around, which can be distributed to the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, W, and Obama administrations, not to mention a couple of more... The question shouldn't be "Who's to blame?", it should be "How the fuck are we going to fix it, now that we are here?".
I wish you well,
Thadius
_____________________________
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb
|
RE: Who's to blame? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread