Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Oct 5, 2003.
wow -- the lies just keep on unraveling
Shortly after Wolfowitz made those claims, the LA Times ran a lengthy investigative piece effectively concluding that the oil money simply wasn't going to be enough. So now we all know, for whatever difference that will make.
I think few people realized the poor condition of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. They were maxing out at around two million bpd, before the war, from what I've read.
They recently hit somewhere around 600,000 bpd to the port/refineries, from some article a month or so back.
We oughta ship some of the hundreds of the idled drilling rigs lying around all over the U.S. Could easily do a mix of development of their oil potential and training of their people to both drill and operate, as necessary/appropriate. Lord knows we have the people who are experienced in working in the middle east, and they as well as the Iraqis could sure use the money.
Possibly few people within the administration knew, but that's the most charitable explanation I can muster. Other experts in Middle Eastern oil certainly did know that Wolfowitz's claim of a self-sustaining Iraq recovery was nonsensical, and they said so in the article I referenced. Even if Iraq's oil production infrastructure was in better shape, they still could not generate enough oil revenue to fund reconstruction.
you know this administration, if the facts don't fit the theory then throw out the facts.
by people do you mean in the administration or the general public?
since the administration commissioned a report that indicated the infrastructure wasn't anywhere near what bush was pretending it was, i certainly hope the administration knew.
manipulation or vast incompetence, take your pick.
I have no way of knowing how far up the food chain that the info on the oil infrastructure really went.
One thing I do know is that politicos and lawyers are really hard to convince when you're talking about mechanical things, that things are either as bad as you're trying to tell them, or can function as well as they can. The silly twits only seem to hear what they want to hear.
"How bad is the infrastructure?"
"How long will it take to fix it?"
"Oh, at least a year, maybe two. We can get some of it on line in three months."
Later: "Hey, those engineers say it'll be up and running in three months!"
Do you think the machinery that's just "sitting around" here in the US will be usable in Iraq?
Anyway, this doesn't surprise me. Oh well, onto another country with better prospects. How's Venezuela doing these days?
so you cite "incompetence."
I do. Before the war, experts outside of the administration weighed in on Mr. Wolfowitz's claims for a self-sustaining Iraqi recovery based on oil revenues, and found them seriously wanting. So know you know, too.
Incompetence? Yeah, if a lack of understanding of the size of a problem can be so labelled. By and large, Bush should have a better handle on the nature of the problem, since he's been around the awl bidness. The obvious question is whether he, himself, received the info which contradicted Wolfowitz.
Look. Just because I'm slow to holler, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" doesn't mean I'm an advocate of all of Bush' doings or that he's blameless. It just means I've long watched screwups in the various flows of information from "out in the field" to those who really should have the info. Just because I read something in a newspaper doesn't mean that El Prez sees that same thing. Just because staffers have information doesn't mean the exactitude survives the filtering process as the information moves upward.
Common to a bunch of these threads is an underlying "I hate Bush" attitude. It colors the themes of a bunch of comments. Trouble is, it solves nothing. It seems to me that folks could at least offer alternative ideas about improving things as to policies and actions instead of just having fun blaming the administration.
At least show some awareness of the problems of any pyramidal hierarchy, be it the administration of a government or a large corporation.
'Rat, I don't understand why you continue to make the bureaucratic argument about who at which level of government knew what. That the Wolfowitz estimates were overly optimistic, erroneous or deliberately misleading became public knowledge long ago. None of what is happening now comes as even the slightest surprise to anyone who read newspapers months ago. But then, our President admits that he doesn't read newspapers, so perhaps that is the source of some of the problem.
of course i'm aware of it. it's the defense Rice used re: "those 16 words", which were stricken from a cincinnati speech but later made their way into the SOTU speech. ("we forgot")
i find it very hard to believe that the oil report in question didn't receive WH attention. of course they saw it, they just chose to ignore it, imo. i think they think we (the public) won't remember. the sad thing is, they're right for the most part.
If that's the case then, isn't it appropriate for us to offer a critique of the Bush administration? Shouldn't facts be a part of the decision making process? The fact that many people in this forum find GWB personally repulsive is incidental to the fact that the organization he heads, at least in a titular sense, is grossly incompetent and disregards and buries information that doesn't support its narrow ideological aims.
After succesfully bullying opponents for a time with smears of being un-American or against the troops/against the war on terror, the Bush camp is now being hit with an avalanche of truth. Their methods didn't win them a lot of friends and now they are paying.
They circumvented the intelligence and military establishments, which were largely silent in the lead up to war because that's what their jobs demand of them. Now those that have a much better understanding of the role of intelligence and the role of the military than Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz are doing what they can to do discredit, if not the administration, at least its methods.
Journalists who for months felt compelled to ignore the readily available facts (the Iraqi oil industry is in bad shape, Iraq didn't try to buy yellowcake from Niger, Saddam is not connected to al Qaeda, etc.) now get to do what they were trained to do, report the facts. And it won't be good for White House credibility.
Critiquing is fine. Finding fault is fine.
It's the built-in asumption that there's a bunch of evil intent on the part of the administration, as opposed to tunnel vision and/or operating from preconceived notions about situations. Bosses get advice which they may or may not believe; may or may not heed. Sometimes bosses screw up bigtime, but that doesn't mean there's wilful and deliberate "evil afoot".
Remind me again how you felt about Grey Davis? You sure weren't slow to holler at him now, were you?
I detected a serious undercurrent of "I hate liberals" in the California threads over the last month or so.
Funny how you are willing to cut Dubya slack and Davis none.
Assuming that our political leaders are telling us the unvarnished truth is a kind of preconception. Continuing to believe it when the evidence begins to mount up on the other side of the equation, is self-deception.
I don't recall intimating I "hate" Gray Davis, or liberals. My view of certain policies of either varies from a mildly raised eyebrow to a general attitude of contempt. I am amused when I see folks hoist on their own petard, particularly when the approach of said petard has been rather obvious.
My general argument with liberals has much less to do with many of their goals than it does with the methods of achieving them. It seems to me that in the efforts to make a nice world for all, they lose sight of the unintended consequences that impact upon those who provide the money. But that would be a whole 'nother thread or six.
if the following reports are true, would you change your mind?
1. many in the administration called for hussein's overthrow and a US-designed reshaping of the middle-east during clinton's administration
2. the bush administration had solid plans for invading iraq in early 2001, with the intent to carry them out
3. on 9/11, rumsfeld issued the command to link the attacks to iraq
4. w/ a report in hand saying otherwise, bush told the public that iraq oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction
5. the NSA willingly let bush make false accusations about iraq's nuclear capabilities in the SOTU address
6. the WH knowingly and willingly outed a CIA operative to punish a political opponent
IF these things are true, then what is your opinion of bush and his administration?
I didn't say you did any more than you said I hated Bush from my comments. It was a general observation.
if the following reports are true, would you change your mind?
"If", yeah, probably.
"1. many in the administration called for hussein's overthrow and a US-designed reshaping of the middle-east during clinton's administration"
That's gone on since the Gulf War. IMO, Hussein should have been kicked out back then. The embargo only hurt the little folks of the Iraqi population.
"2. the bush administration had solid plans for invading iraq in early 2001,"
The Pentagon has solid plans for invading nearly everybody.
"...with the intent to carry them out"
You "know" that; I don't.
"3. on 9/11, rumsfeld issued the command to link the attacks to iraq"
All by himself?
"4. w/ a report in hand saying otherwise, bush told the public that iraq oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction"
And if he didn't believe the report, assuming he did indeed have it? What neither you or I know is the credibility of that report in the eyes of the "Inner circle".
"5. the NSA willingly let bush make false accusations about iraq's nuclear capabilities in the SOTU address"
I'm rather dubious that you or I could know the inner-circle thinking of NSA. It might be alleged that they were willing "accomplices" or whatever, but that doesn't mean it's so.
"6. the WH knowingly and willingly outed a CIA operative to punish a political opponent"
Somebody did, obviously. As I've said before, it was a henhouse-ways thing at best, and I'd be happy to see whoever did it go to jail.
thank you. i knew we'd disagree on the veracity of the points in question, but i'm glad we agree on the ramifications if they are indeed true.
But then you go out of your way to dismiss the veracity or gravity of most of the claims that are most surely true.
So in essence, no matter what truth comes out (short of a public admission by Bush himself) about this whole deal, I somehow feel that you'll always find a way to downplay it ("it's been happening since... etc, etc.) or doubt it ("don't know for sure yet, no one's admitted to anything").
I don't think I went out of my way; not at all. I'm just a natural-born sceptic about a lot of things.
And, since the only real hope for any redress is at the ballot box, I have a fair amount of time to be convinced, to make up my mind...
The reason "...it's been happening..." is important to me is that I'm not necessarily convinced that things would be any different with, say Dean or Hillary as Prez. If a behavior pattern is consistent through various administrations, and is unlikely to change in the future, why should I get excited about things which will not change? I don't have to like it; I can comment and criticize upon occasion, but I see no point in emoting at length.