Bush administration twists intelligence...again.

[Tiger Al 0]

In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. That was a significant new charge, the first allegation that North Korea was helping to create a new nuclear weapons state.

But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction. North Korea, according to the intelligence, had supplied uranium hexafluoride -- which can be enriched to weapons-grade uranium -- to Pakistan. It was Pakistan, a key U.S. ally with its own nuclear arsenal, that sold the material to Libya. The U.S. government had no evidence, the officials said, that North Korea knew of the second transaction.

Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, according to the officials, who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. In addition, a North Korea-Pakistan transfer would not have been news to the U.S. allies, which have known of such transfers for years and viewed them as a business matter between sovereign states.

The Bush administration's approach, intended to isolate North Korea, instead left allies increasingly doubtful as they began to learn that the briefings omitted essential details about the transaction, U.S. officials and foreign diplomats said in interviews. North Korea responded to public reports last month about the briefings by withdrawing from talks with its neighbors and the United States.

Way to go, George! That's a real good example you're setting there for the rest of the world to follow. You dislike someone, so, instead of giving honest facts to convince others of your righteousness, you make up an alternate version of the "truth."

Pretty soon, no one else on earth is going to believe a single word the US says.

U.S. Misled Allies About Nuclear Export

[AURaptor 1,126]

Geo politics aren't always so straight forward. That N.Korea used Pakistan as a go between and that the U.S. didn't want to publically admonish a fragile ally like Pakistan is commendable.

Perhaps those who are hating the present adminstration could do us a favor and not nit pick every little detail while making mountains out of mole hills. W isn't the enemy. He's the President.

[Tiger Al 0]

I didn't know "nit-picking" about the truth was a bad thing. If you claim to be a "beacon of light" whose example the rest of the world should follow, then you shouldn't lie. If you choose to lie, then you don't have the moral high ground to stand on as you ridicule those who don't believe you. That is pretty straightforward to me. But, then, maybe it depends on what your definition of "is" is, right?

Secondly, the US sources said that N. Korea didn't know about Pakistan's sale to Libya. The US claimed that N. Korea sold it to Pakistan outright. So, Pakistan sold nuclear material to a country whose leadership is as questionable as anyone's and that's no problem? Or, do we now not mind if Libya becomes a nuclear state? If the answer is "no, we mind", then why is it commendable not to admonish Pakistan? That's like saying the crack buyer is guilty of a crime, but, the crack dealer did nothing wrong.

And last, if you will, think back twenty years ago. Didn't we look the other way when one of our allies (Iraq) used chemical weapons against a certain country that we didn't like (Iran)? Twenty years later, we used that as a reason to attack them. Isn't there some amount of hypocrisy in that? Is that how a "beacon" conducts itself or should it demand of itself what it demands of others?

[AURaptor 1,126]

I didn't know "nit-picking" about the truth was a bad thing. If you claim to be a "beacon of light" whose example the rest of the world should follow, then you shouldn't lie. If you choose to lie, then you don't have the moral high ground to stand on as you ridicule those who don't believe you. That is pretty straightforward to me. But, then, maybe it depends on what your definition of "is" is, right?

Secondly, the US sources said that N. Korea didn't know about Pakistan's sale to Libya. The US claimed that N. Korea sold it to Pakistan outright. So, Pakistan sold nuclear material to a country whose leadership is as questionable as anyone's and that's no problem? Or, do we now not mind if Libya becomes a nuclear state? If the answer is "no, we mind", then why is it commendable not to admonish Pakistan? That's like saying the crack buyer is guilty of a crime, but, the crack dealer did nothing wrong.

And last, if you will, think back twenty years ago. Didn't we look the other way when one of our allies (Iraq) used chemical weapons against a certain country that we didn't like (Iran)? Twenty years later, we used that as a reason to attack them. Isn't there some amount of hypocrisy in that? Is that how a "beacon" conducts itself or should it demand of itself what it demands of others?

151789[/snapback]

As I said before, Geo Politics aren't so clear cut. Nothing is simply black or white. We might wish it were that way, but it isn't. There are many forces at work here, not just 2 oposing ones.

As for things happening 20 yrs ago, things change. As much as you'd like for there to be purity in your politics, it simply isn't gonna happen. 20 yrs go, Iraq didn't have 17 U.N. resolutions piled up against them. 20 yrs ago, Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait, and then failed to live up to its cease fire agreements after having been tossed out. 20 yrs ago, Iraq hadn't murdered 5,000 + civilian Kurds in their village.

Jimmy Carter had the false impression that if you play nice w/ everyone else, they'll play nice w/ you. The real world doesn't work like that, not as long as we have tyrants and dictators who refuse to 'play by the rules'. Hell, even the U.N. is guilty of a massive scandal with the Food for Oil fiasco.

You started this thread w/ the remark that the U.S. twisted intelligence again When did it do this the 1st time ?

[Auburn85 432]

Why take Bush's word for it, when you have Chavez, Castro, and Saddam

Jimmy Carter wasn't a good president, but he would make a great humanitarian to work for the UN

[Tiger Al 0]

As I said before, Geo Politics aren't so clear cut. Nothing is simply black or white. We might wish it were that way, but it isn't. There are many forces at work here, not just 2 oposing ones.

Lying is OK when it promotes ones particular agenda. Got it.

As for things happening 20 yrs ago, things change. As much as you'd like for there to be purity in your politics, it simply isn't gonna happen. 20 yrs go, Iraq didn't have 17 U.N. resolutions piled up against them. 20 yrs ago, Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait, and then failed to live up to its cease fire agreements after having been tossed out. 20 yrs ago, Iraq hadn't murdered 5,000 + civilian Kurds in their village.

Using chemical weapons on people is OK when it promotes ones particular agenda. Got it. Becoming outraged at said action is OK when ones particular agenda changes later is OK. Got that, too.

Jimmy Carter had the false impression that if you play nice w/ everyone else, they'll play nice w/ you. The real world doesn't work like that, not as long as we have tyrants and dictators who refuse to 'play by the rules'. Hell, even the U.N. is guilty of a massive scandal with the Food for Oil fiasco.

Sorry, it wasn't Carter. It was Reagan/Bush who overlooked Iraq's gassing of the Iranians. For all of Carter's shortcomings, he had one attribute that many of today's politicians (all sides) could learn from; Say what you mean and mean what you say. To Carter's political detriment he was guided by one simple principle: The US does not negotiate with terrorists, even when they hold Americans hostage. As far as "playing by the rules," I'm sorry that you don't think that the US is worthy enough to meet that challenge or that we really can't be more truthful than rogue despots or the UN. I'll respectfully disagree with you.

You started this thread w/ the remark that the U.S. twisted intelligence again When did it do this the 1st time ?

Actually, I said the Bush administration did it again.

The number one reason we invaded Iraq was because it was in possession of WMD's at the time we attacked it, according to the administration. We were told that this was incontrovertable because our intelligence said so. Unfortunately, intelligence sources never claimed that the evidence was so solid. Often times, the evidence was just the opposite and the administration ignored it. Anyone who opposed the "administration line" was branded as unpatriotic, an appeaser or just simply a Bush-hater.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The number one reason we invaded Iraq was because it was in possession of WMD's at the time we attacked it, according to the administration. We were told that this was incontrovertable because our intelligence said so. Unfortunately, intelligence sources never claimed that the evidence was so solid. Often times, the evidence was just the opposite and the administration ignored it. Anyone who opposed the "administration line" was branded as unpatriotic, an appeaser or just simply a Bush-hater.

Iraq did have those weapons. The number one reason we invaded Iraq was because it violated UN resolutions.The Bush Administration didn't need to distort anything. And it wasn't just our intel either. Many other countries, friends and foes alike to the U.S. were saying the exact same thing.

Many of those ( on the Left ) who were opposing the Administration line had said exactly the same thing about Iraq. Some said it years ago, some said it as recent as 3 months before the invasion of Iraq. Then, afterwards, they mysteriously changed their tune and became anit-'what ever the Bush Administration was doing'. In my book, that's an undeniable mark of playing partisan politics in the worst way, for the worst possible reason. In many cases, those who who opposed the 'administration line' were indeed Bush - haters, unpatriotic or appeasers.

[Piglet 0]

As I said before, Geo Politics aren't so clear cut. Nothing is simply black or white. We might  wish it were that way, but it isn't.  There are many forces at work here, not just 2 oposing ones. 

So moral relativism is a good thing, but only when it's a conservative doing it?

[AURaptor 1,126]

As I said before, Geo Politics aren't so clear cut. Nothing is simply black or white. We might  wish it were that way, but it isn't.  There are many forces at work here, not just 2 oposing ones. 

So moral relativism is a good thing, but only when it's a conservative doing it?

151808[/snapback]

At least when they're consistant. Note the 180 degree change from so many Democrats who were all for the use of force and talking tough about Iraq when Clinton was President, but not when a Republican was in the White House. This isn't about moral relativisim , nor is this some detatched , dispationate debate over hypothetical constructs.....it's having to deal w/ the real world.

[Tiger Al 0]

Iraq did have those weapons. The number one reason we invaded Iraq was because it violated UN resolutions.The Bush Administration didn't need to distort anything. And it wasn't just our intel either. Many other countries, friends and foes alike to the U.S. were saying the exact same thing.

Sure, there's no doubt that at one time Iraq had WMD. It didn't at the time Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell, etc. were saying it did, though. They said that Iraq was currently, 2002 at the time, in possession of chemical and biological weapons, would soon have nuclear weapons, had the means to deliver them by way of long-range missiles and unmanned drones and that the US had proof of all of this. That was not the case and many who served in this country's intelligence community for many years and through many administrations said as much. The threat of imminent peril was the number one reason Bush, et al, gave for invading Iraq, not resolutions. The past resolutions were a way of rendering the UN impotent with regards to Iraq in public opinion.

Many of those ( on the Left ) who were opposing the Administration line had said exactly the same thing about Iraq. Some said it years ago, some said it as recent as 3 months before the invasion of Iraq. Then, afterwards, they mysteriously changed their tune and became anit-'what ever the Bush Administration was doing'.

Yes, I've seen that list of quotes, too. My rebuttal still stands.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yes, I've seen that list of quotes, too. My rebuttal still stands.

Read that quote, and it's as long winded as it is inaccurate.

The 'ace-in-the-hole' was a British 'intelligence report' that was nothing more than copied acedemic articles.

That wasn't by any means the 'ace- in - the - hole', but merely another piece of a long , long list of evidence against Iraq. Iraq was not to be trusted, and this nonsense about 'containment' in a post 9/11 world is foolhearty and naive.

[Tiger Al 0]

There was no legitimate evidence in the first place and time has proven that. Now, they've been caught manufacturing "evidence" against N. Korea.

[AURaptor 1,126]

There was no legitimate evidence in the first place and time has proven that. Now, they've been caught manufacturing "evidence" against N. Korea.

151818[/snapback]

The only thing 'manufactured' in N.Korea is the weapons grade nuclear material that was made possible by Clinton and Carter. As for Iraq, the fact that it was still refusing to comply to U.N. resolutions and cease fire agreements are what got it in trouble.

[Tiger Al 0]

"The administration is giving Pakistan a free ride when they don't deserve it and hurting U.S. interests at the same time," said Charles L. Pritchard, who was the Bush administration's special envoy for the North Korea talks until August 2003. "As our allies get the full picture, it doesn't help our credibility with them," he said.

Pritchard, now a Brookings Institution fellow, and others had initially raised questions about the Libya connection when it became public last month. No one in the administration has been willing to discuss the uranium sale publicly.

Two years ago, U.S. officials told allies that North Korea was trying to assemble an enrichment facility that would turn uranium hexafluoride into bomb-grade material.

But China and South Korea, in particular, have been skeptical of those assertions and are becoming increasingly wary of pressuring North Korea.

See, beacons of light shouldn't have to lie. As Pritchard said above, it doesn't help our credibility.

As for Iraq, yes, they had been allowed to skate on resolutions by two administrations. They had also been thouroughly inspected and disarmed by UNSCOM. More importantly, though, for three months preceeding our invasion of Iraq, UNMOVIC inspectors moved freely throughout the country using our supposed intelligence information and repeatedly found nothing where they were told something would be. In other words, we knew beforehand that Iraq had been disarmed and was cooperating. Attack could've been put on hold until weapons were found or they stopped cooperating. UNMOVIC was told to evacuate so we could begin invasion operations. Bush said the military option would be his last resort, but it wasn't.

[Piglet 0]

The moment I knew--definitively KNEW--that Saddam didn't have anything, was when our troops went in and did not immediately get something nasty launched at them. At that point, Saddam was a militaristic lunatic with nothing left to lose, no way to win without using WMDs and no insentive at all not to hit the guys coming to get him, hit them with everything he had.

And yeah, everyone from left to right was surprised that there weren't any. Bush probably thought what he thought in good faith, made an honest error. But it would have been better if he'd said so, instead of pretending the whole thing was all about liberating the towelheads and bringing Democracy to the oppressed people. It's because of covering it up that a lot of people think Bush was lying from the get go.

It's the same way a lot of people who would have forgiven Clinton for cheating on his wife (I mean, can you imagine being married to Hillary? How could you NOT be tempted to have some fun on the side?) got much madder about it because he lied. You're human, you can make a mistake. But you gotta come clean about it.

[CCTAU 3,341]

The moment I knew--definitively KNEW--that Saddam didn't have anything, was when our troops went in and did not immediately get something nasty launched at them.  At that point, Saddam was a militaristic lunatic with nothing left to lose, no way to win without using WMDs and no insentive at all not to hit the guys coming to get him, hit them with everything he had.

And yeah, everyone from left to right was surprised that there weren't any. Bush probably thought what he thought in good faith, made an honest error. But it would have been better if he'd said so, instead of pretending the whole thing was all about liberating the towelheads and bringing Democracy to the oppressed people. It's because of covering it up that a lot of people think Bush was lying from the get go.

It's the same way a lot of people who would have forgiven Clinton for cheating on his wife (I mean, can you imagine being married to Hillary? How could you NOT be tempted to have some fun on the side?) got much madder about it because he lied. You're human, you can make a mistake. But you gotta come clean about it.

151996[/snapback]

Not true bacon boy. Sadaam always figured your friends and his in the UN would step in and save him. What he didn't figure on is there are more people in America who are fed up with being treated as second class world citizens when we all foot the bill anyway. What's done is done. It will prove to be the right thing many years down the road. I just hope all the demoncratic chapped a$$es heal up long before then.