Uk Intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@21 July 2003 - 14:39
What do you think of the Bush / UK Intelligence situation.

---

i think they're in a big creek with a small paddle, and its more likely to get worse than better for the mid-term. Latest news to confirm such a view is a pentagon-commissioned report released last week warning that if the forces don't make significant progress in Iraq soon, the entire endeavour will fail. Wolfowitz admitted last week that the dropped the ball on preserving civil order after the collapse of the old regime.

as i've said many times on the subject, the whole adventure was tainted with wilfull blindness, no seasoned intelligence officer could possibly have been fooled by the Niger documents. Its the difference between analyzing the data, then making a decision on how to act, versus the current situation where the decision was made regardless of the data, then plundered for whatever information would justify the decision.

Last week, i read the first headline speculating that Shrub will be a one-termer. I think thats less likely than more to happen....but then again, last week, i read the first headline speculating that Shrub will be a one-termer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000+21 July 2003 - 15:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 21 July 2003 - 15:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@21 July 2003 - 14:39
What do you think of the Bush / UK Intelligence situation.

---

i think they&#39;re in a big creek with a small paddle, and its more likely to get worse than better for the mid-term. Latest news to confirm such a view is a pentagon-commissioned report released last week warning that if the forces don&#39;t make significant progress in Iraq soon, the entire endeavour will fail. Wolfowitz admitted last week that the dropped the ball on preserving civil order after the collapse of the old regime.

as i&#39;ve said many times on the subject, the whole adventure was tainted with wilfull blindness, no seasoned intelligence officer could possibly have been fooled by the Niger documents. Its the difference between analyzing the data, then making a decision on how to act, versus the current situation where the decision was made regardless of the data, then plundered for whatever information would justify the decision.

Last week, i read the first headline speculating that Shrub will be a one-termer. I think thats less likely than more to happen....but then again, last week, i read the first headline speculating that Shrub will be a one-termer. [/b][/quote]
So, in essence you feel that Bush&#39;s intelligence people should have looked at the material and warned him against it.

Which makes it even more shameful that he is blaming the UK for his / their own failings.

I should have made no comment at all as I have not heard the comments of President Bush jr. I could not resist it though. I have always had a low opinion of him and this, what you reported, only goes to underscore it.

I am sure he himself feels, with hindsight, ashamed of what he has said. (or he should be) Luckily his term in office is drawing to a close and hopefuly the American people will this time be "allowed" to chose someone more apt to carry out the duties of such a responsible position.

I say "allowed" because I feel that the last elections were rigged. But that is another totally dfferent topic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@21 July 2003 - 15:23
So, in essence you feel that Bush&#39;s intelligence people should have looked at the material and warned him against it.

Which makes it even more shameful that he is blaming the UK for his / their own failings.

---

your comment implies that Bush was the victim of his underlings, which i reject on principle, as I think the turth is much closer to the opposite. IMHO, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that he didn&#39;t orchestrate in winkwinknudgenudge fashion all of this deception, he and wolfowitz and cheney and rumsfeld. I think its naive to think that the most powerful men in the US, and therefore in the world, were so easily compromised by subordinate incompetence. like i keep saying, wilful blindness, and I mean at the very top, not middle management.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalkmongoose@21 July 2003 - 03:17
Wait... Why is America even THINKING of trusting the Brits? I mean, not to cause a fight, but didn&#39;t we kick their asses with a few muskets and a guy in a coonskin cap a couple of hundred years back? I mean, we pretty much embarrased them in front of the whole world, and all they got to do as punishment was burn our white house down in 1812.

---

In my previous post i wasn&#39;t having a go at the yanks, but a yank thinks so. so bollocks to him/her/it. we must be having it soft in basra, but the poor yanks are having it not so good in bagdad, but not to worry, the yanks are the elite they are sorting it????. If we brits are so useless, inept, inefficient, etc,etc, PLEASE PLEASE
don&#39;t involve us in anymore policing of the world. just let us muddle on in our own
daft way. i would be everso pleased. billyfridge. <_<

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000@21 July 2003 - 16:51
he (Bush) and wolfowitz and cheney and rumsfeld.

---

I think you should include Blair and Campbell in that cabal. They could hardly have been involved in providing the &#39;evidence&#39; without being completely aware of what was going on. Now it seems to be a case of thieves falling out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nigel123@21 July 2003 - 15:35
I should have made no comment at all as I have not heard the comments of President Bush jr. I could not resist it though. I have always had a low opinion of him and this, what you reported, only goes to underscore it.


I say "allowed" because I feel that the last elections were rigged. But that is another totally dfferent topic.

---

Wouldn&#39;t this be another act of willful blindness? You believe that the election was fixed because that is the conclusion you want to believe.

Although you cannot support this statement and although there is proof to the contrary, you still wish to hold onto your conspiracy fantasy.

You would think that America would notice if someone were elected whom nobody voted for or wanted. The fact is that the election was a close one between equal incompetants. The full recount done in Florida, as referenced by J2K4 many times, actually widened Bushs&#39; lead.

I find it ironic that in a thread about not getting the facts straight, someone posts this. No, I did not vote for Bush.

JPaul,

I fail to see how he could blame the British intelligence, as this intelligence had been publically pulled apart months before his speech anyway.

In addition, the UK government is being accused of the same things as the US Government as to sexing up of the intelligence....ie Dont blame the Security Services of EITHER side, it was the politicians that decided what intelligence to use, against the advice of all the Intelligence Agencies on both sides of the Atlantic.



In essence; Bush tried to put a spin on something that was already spinning wildly out of control before he opened his mouth.


Does this make sense?

Strange, i know what i meant.... ;)

I know exactly what you meant.

The problem is that most people don&#39;t actually know what intelligence is. To say that you have intelligence to suggest something doesn&#39;t really mean anything. It can be anything from total speculation to an absolute certainty.

You really have to know the classifications. The normal gradings for intelligence have 125 possible combinations. I believe the military gradings have 216 possible combinations.

You really have to know the veracity of the source, the information and the recipient before you can really make any judgement on the quality of intelligence.

Hobbes:
Not wanting to go off topic, please allow me to meander a little. I have followed G.Bushes career over the years, long before he was President. As governor of Texas, he allowed a mentally disturbed person to be put to death. Someone who could/should not be held resposible for his deeds. In fact I don&#39;t think he ever showed any clemeny.

You receive your facts via the media, so do I for the most part. In this case the media for me was JPaul. Whose opinion I feel I can trust more than for example CNN. I have not yet heard a denial that these words were not said by your President so by deduction I can assume that what JPaul said to be true. Your President has blamed the British intelligence for going to war in effect. He has passed the buck. Not very becoming for a super power.

Intelligence or no intelligence as regards to active WMD projects in Iraq, I believe there were active, ongoing projects. That Sadam has been removed from power, is a good thing in my opinion. Only problem is the timing, it should have been done during the gulf war. That has resulted in many deaths and a huge refugee problem.

Blair has stood by Bush and I believe got him out of many a scrape. It has certainly cost him dearly at home. This then is no way to treat your staunchest ally. As regards to the election farce, feel free to start a new topic then we can discuss it further. Perhaps there is an already existing topic that could be "dug" up.