Text 23049, 135 rader
Skriven 2008-11-03 06:08:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JEFF SMITH
Ärende: Loyalties
=================
On 11-02-08, JEFF SMITH said to WARD DOSSCHE:


WD> From my many travels in the US I seem to notice that this particular
WD> matter maybe was not censored but was heavily clouded to create the
WD> impression there was serious opposition thereby creating the platform
WD> for a bid to go to war.


WD> At worst some inspectors were held-up at some gates for one or two
WD> hours but eventually they got in everywhere.


JS>Held up? Held up for about 10 years. Wasn't it the UN inspectors that
JS>pulled out of Iraq because they were not being allowed to do thr job?
JS>When the inspectors finally got the opportunity to renter Iraq Hussein had
JS>about 4 years to hide/dismantle/smuggle anything that he didn't want
JS>found.


JS>Bush was wrong for what he did.



Not necessarily. Bush was, prior to becoming president, a governor of a large
state. I know people think thats similar to the presidency, but it isn't. Not
even close. The presidency is probably a hundred times more complicated than a
state governorship.


On the state level....a governor has people who make studies and gather
information the governor can use to request federal funds to help with;
education, the roads and highway system, etc etc.


If the information one of these people or group of people gives him is faulty
or dead wrong, the governor has the option of firing that person or group, and
hiring someone else to do a better job.


Bush was in the presidency for about eight months when 9\11 occured. The
intelligence people in the various intel services of the US had been in place
for many years (most of them). Personally, I fault our intelligence services
for not being on top of the 9\11 issue before it even got off the ground; like
when the people who would take part in it first came into the country and were
enrolling in the flight schools. Bush didn't have any fault for that. He'd
only been around for about eight months when 9\11 happened. The people who
pulled off 9\11 came into the country and started going to the schools during
the Clinton years. Again.......the intelligence services in this country fell
on their collective faces.


And Bush would have no more knowledge of how good or accurate the info given
to him was in his first eight months in office than you or I would. He had to
rely on the people in place at the time. People who had been at their jobs for
decades, some of them.


As for the WMD's in Iraq.......they were certainly there at one time, Hussein
used chemical weapons on people. And thats documented. There's no getting
around that. Not only that.......it was pretty common knowledge that Hussein
was in the market for the materials to produce a nuclear weapon. Even if only
a primitive one that was more radiation than physical destruction, a nuclear
weapon in the hands of Saddam Hussein would have been used. He himself was
proof of that.


If.........as is touted all the time......Saddam Hussein was only running an
elaborate bluff about possessing weapons of mass destruction (to include
factories and storage buildings picked up on spy plane cameras, as well as
trucks and drivable equipment) to give a strong impression he possessed
weapons he really did not have.......then it worked all too well. And Saddam
Hussein and his two sons are the victims of Saddam's own expert ability to run
a bluff!


Bush isn't really at the bottom of the fault. He takes heavy responsibility
because he's the man at the top. He ordered the invasion.


The `real' responsibility lies at the feet of the people who were feeding him
the intelligence reports, showing him the photos of the spy planes and
interpreting them for him, etc etc; coupled with Saddam Hussein's own ability
to fake up stuff that wasn't really there.


My position has always been that, in Bush's place, I would have wanted a lot
more evidence of the WMD's angle before ordering a full scale invasion. I
don't think the solid evidence of WMD's was really there. There might indeed
have been WMD's. There certainly were chemicals.


The WMD's were not the `only' reason we went into Iraq. There was the
continued violation of several very serious resolutions placed on Iraq that
Hussein constantly ignored.


And here's another facet of this:


As I said, people have been `in' the government for decades. Presidents come
and go every four or eight years (if they serve a second term).


You can't tell me that people who have been in place for twenty or thirty
years don't develope their own pet peeves, their own little `kingdoms' within
their respective department\agency\whatever. I know they do. I've seen it on
much lower levels far too often (local Board of Educations, Fire Boards,
DMV's, Social Services, etc etc), not to know there are a lot more of them in
federal government with their own agendas and ideas of `how things ought to
be'.


There are so many high-placed and important (some critical) `leaks' of
information to the press it isn't even funny. Some of it, were it to come from
an ordinary citizen, could result in a prison sentence of several years!


That isn't just `disloyalty'....its treasonous! Its disgusting. And I have
strongly suspected that it is nothing more than a bunch of people in
government jobs, who are determined to destroy Bush as a president. Or any
president that comes along they either don't like, or see as a threat to their
agenda.


They were at George Bush from the day he took office. They are so pissed off
that their boy Clinton got impeached they can't stand it!





---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)