Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "Bloggers under attack, Part 9,462,591"] [Archive Index] [>>"Just how chickenshit can this guy get?"]
11/16/2003 Archived Entry: "A 'Smoking Gun' with real smoke."
A 'Smoking Gun' with real smoke.
Yesterday, The Weekly Standard published an article based on a leaked memo that was discredited by the DoD and CIA within hours.
Let's see the White House discredit this.
British warnings that America was failing before the war to prepare properly for a crumbling security situation in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was ousted were ignored by Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon.In some of the first direct evidence of serious divisions between the key allies in the run-up to the conflict, the former British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, said the US had failed to focus on what might happen after Saddam had been overthrown.
His admission raises serious questions that a lack of planning by US forces is at least partly to blame for Iraq's present security problems.
Last week 17 Italians and eight Iraqis were killed by a suicide bomber in the southern Iraqi town of Nasiriyah. It was the worst atrocity in the country for three months.
In an interview with The Observer, Meyer, who was ambassador just before the war began, said there were a series of meetings between British and American officials between the signing of the United Nations Resolution 1441 last November and the start of the war in March.
The British regularly raised their concerns about how much planning was going on to secure the country after Saddam, but the issue was largely ignored.
Replies: 9 people speak up
Neither the DoD nor the CIA discredited the leaked memo. They just refused to confirm it. I like how you believe them SOMETIMES but disbelieve them in others.
How convenient.
As for President Bush and funerals for dead soldiers, if he attended them you'd say it was just a rank photo op so pardon the rest of us for chuckling at your feigned indignation.
Posted by Tim @ 11/16/2003 08:22 PM NY
Ooh, parsing. You guys dogged Clinton for doing it, but you're not above parsing your asses off now, are you?
And do you have an instance of when I believe them sometimes and not others, or are you just talking out of your ass?
Just curious.
Posted by editor @ 11/16/2003 11:31 PM NY
And as for funerals - Bush is a coward for not attending. He sends his sympathies via mail - that way, none of the bereaved families can spit in his lying face.
Anything else?
Posted by editor @ 11/16/2003 11:33 PM NY
I'd like to respond to the previous message:
If Bush finally would attend a funeral we would most likely call it a photo-op, so what? What's more important to me is the fact that he would finally show some true respect for those who have died 'defending this country.'
And laying a reef at Arlington isn't going to cut it. Every president before him and after him will do that. You can't make an exception out of it.
Posted by Jason @ 11/17/2003 12:30 PM NY
well, tims here, now we have 2 of the 4 right wing wackos (unless goeffrey is one of them too, but i think he is a free lance wacko), this is getting fun. now we have enough mouthy little bitches to go around.
now, on topic: i think the results speak for themselves really. do we need any proof that bush had no plans for after the war, beyond the evidence of it that we see on the news every day. i think the fact that there is no real plan being carried out for the reconstruction of iraq, is proof enough that there really was no plan (although we do have the oil industry up and exporting now) the main problem is that we went in on a false assumption, that the iraqis would welcome us with parades and flowers. all of the post war plans (if there were any to begin with) were based on the idea that they would be greatfull to us for reducing their lives to rubble. an occupation with an acive resistance is not what they planned for. actually a fairly brilliant tactic on saddams part, if he is in fact involved in any of this in the first place, throw all the slaves in your regular army at the unmerican juggernaut, and save all the real rescources for the back end, where they know we are vulnerable. a few words of wisdom, empires fall, thats what they do, the empire is an unsustainable political format, leading to decadence, complacency, and eventual political, moral, and social collapse. its inevitable, entropy conquers all, and the more rigid the social structure, the more vulnerable it is. the only occupation that has ever really succeeded was our genocide of the native americans, and that only worked because we killed almost all of them.
Posted by justin @ 11/17/2003 12:43 PM NY
Bush can't possibly attend every funeral, especially with the death toll running at its current rate.... he'd never have any time for fundraising.
Posted by lonestar @ 11/17/2003 12:43 PM NY
I'm not asking for Bush to attend every funeral; just a couple to show us he cares. Since it's quite obvious he doesn't care don't expect to see him at one.
Besides, if he did attend every funeral he indeed wouldn't have time for his fundraisers. It'd be a shame to cut into all that money he so desparately seems to need.
Posted by Jason @ 11/17/2003 01:46 PM NY
Okay, I jumped into the Geoffrey/Raging Dave thing after the Editor closed off comments and I'd like to post a little related humor over here:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=15964
Editor - if this is inappropriate, feel free to delete.
Posted by Mixer @ 11/17/2003 05:43 PM NY
Of course, you could take that exact same cartoon and plug in your favorite anti-war site and it would be equally appropriate.
Posted by Geoffrey @ 11/17/2003 06:22 PM NY
