Bush Plays Down Banned Weapons Hunt in Iraq

[NFS4]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2857983

 

[etech]

How does

The United States announced Friday a major expansion of so-far fruitless efforts to find chemical and biological arms in Iraq, forming a team of 1,400 U.S., British and Australian experts to take up the hunt.

a major expansion get turned into "Plays Down Banned Weapons Hunt in Iraq "?

 

[Insane3D]

No, it was about freeing the Iraqi people....not WMD's...right?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: etech
How does

The United States announced Friday a major expansion of so-far fruitless efforts to find chemical and biological arms in Iraq, forming a team of 1,400 U.S., British and Australian experts to take up the hunt.

a major expansion get turned into "Plays Down Banned Weapons Hunt in Iraq "?

I assume he was referring to the title of the article posted.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: etech
How does

The United States announced Friday a major expansion of so-far fruitless efforts to find chemical and biological arms in Iraq, forming a team of 1,400 U.S., British and Australian experts to take up the hunt.

a major expansion get turned into "Plays Down Banned Weapons Hunt in Iraq "?

I assume he was referring to the title of the article posted.

So was I. It's rather obvious. It's ok though, you got two posts out of it instead of just one.

Now how did a major expansion get turned into "plays down"? Is it a biased reporter or did I miss something major in the story?

 

[Insane3D]

So was I. It's rather obvious. It's ok though, you got two posts out of it instead of just one.

Your post was not there when I posted my first post, I posted again to answer your question. I'll make sure to run it by you next time first.

Now how did a major expansion get turned into "plays down"? Is it a biased reporter or did I miss something major in the story?

I would assume it has to do with the fact that they have found nothing at all so far, save some possible labs, and the administration has been getting a lot of criticism for it over the past week. The comments by Wolfowitz also were an attempt to "play down" the importance of the WMD's that we were told were so dangerous and a threat to our security before the war.

The "plays down" part is a fair assesment IMO. The President is trying to deflect the criticism by announcing the expanded effort and the fact that it will take time. Basically, he is saying they haven't been found yet, but will...that is "playing down" IMO.

Is Reuters a biased news source now? Also, was my post serious enough, or was it my usual neffing, OT style?

 

[NFS4]

How does a major expansion get turned into "Plays Down Banned Weapons Hunt in Iraq "?

"The Bush administration defended Sunday the slow pace of efforts to find banned weapons in Iraq, citing other pressing priorities from restoring order to rebuilding the country.

"We've discovered a weapons system -- biological labs that Iraq denied she had and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions," President Bush told reporters after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"My opinion is that we must work together to improve the lives of the Iraqi citizens, that we must cooperate closely to make sure that the Iraqi infrastructure is in place so that Iraqi citizens can live decently," Bush said."




Seems pretty obvious to me

 

[etech]

So which is most important?

Restoring order, water and food to the Iraqis or finding the WMD? The regime that would have and had used them in the past is now gone.


Insane3D

I would assume it has to do with the fact that they have found nothing at all so far, save some possible labs, and the administration has been getting a lot of criticism for it over the past week. The comments by Wolfowitz also were an attempt to "play down" the importance of the WMD's that we were told were so dangerous and a threat to our security before the war.

A Vanity Fair article "misrepresents" statements made by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz about U.S. justification for the invasion of Iraq, Pentagon officials said.

The "plays down" part is a fair assesment IMO. The President is trying to deflect the criticism by announcing the expanded effort and the fact that it will take time. Basically, he is saying they haven't been found yet, but will...that is "playing down" IMO.

Since only the two labs have been found and the effort is being upgraded while the emphasis has been on restoring order and utilities to the Iraqis that is playing down the importance of the WMD. Got it.

I would say that your first post was well within your usual standards.

 

[Insane3D]

I would say that your first post was well within your usual standards.

Thanks. I try to maintain my standards.

 

[yellowperil]

What about the quote from the U.S. Marine commander in the other AP article?

On Friday, the commander of U.S. Marines in Iraq said he was surprised that extensive searches have failed to discover any of the chemical weapons that U.S. intelligence had indicated were supplied to front line Iraqi forces at the outset of the war.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

I don't buy the argument that the U.S. is too busy restoring the lives of Iraqis to find the mythical WMDs

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

So which is most important?

Restoring order, water and food to the Iraqis or finding the WMD? The regime that would have and had used them in the past is now gone.

Of course taking care of the Iraqis is more important, Iraqi Freedom was the name of the war afterall. All of our resources and attention should be devoted to that, we can get around to finding the WMD's whenever. They are probably safely hidden away, unguarded, and available to anyone who knows where they are or finds them to do with as they please. Or better yet, maybe they were destroyed before the war even started, so there's nothing to worry about.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: etech
A Vanity Fair article "misrepresents" statements made by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz about U.S. justification for the invasion of Iraq, Pentagon officials said.

When I saw that headline I was ready to believe it - after all, what Wolfowitz was reported to have said sounds like a pretty bad gaffe.

However, the Pentagon are complaining that ;
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason"
got turned into ;
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Its not exactly a misinterpretation, is it?
And as for taking it out of context, Wolfowitz then went on to say;

"-- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again
...
To wrap it up. The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation."

This, to my mind, sounds even worse than the original quote that was made so much of. In PR terms, this was a terrible interview.

He has basically said that the abuse of the Iraqi people wasn't enough to go to war for, that the government can't agree on whether there was any link between Saddam and terrorism, and that they chose to sell the war on WMDs because it was the best stopgap.

Note: quotes taken from DoD News release. Emphasis mine.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: yellowperil
What about the quote from the U.S. Marine commander in the other AP article?

On Friday, the commander of U.S. Marines in Iraq said he was surprised that extensive searches have failed to discover any of the chemical weapons that U.S. intelligence had indicated were supplied to front line Iraqi forces at the outset of the war.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

I don't buy the argument that the U.S. is too busy restoring the lives of Iraqis to find the mythical WMDs

same here, expecialy since not much is happening in that front either

 

[CaptnKirk]

Intersting info on the 'Terrorist Camp' in northern Iraq

This is the one that kept being pointed out as an Al-Queda Training Camp and link.

==============================================================
Different article -
(Had to lift this data, as the link had a bunch of post-up replies - here's the text):

<SPAN class=title><U>Powell's Terrorist Camp Turns Out Not to Be</U></SPAN>
Colin Powell likely was mistaken when he labelled a shabby military compound in Iraq <FONT color=#006699 size=1>a 'poison factory'</FONT>, says a British reporter who just visited the compound. In the Sunday London Observer, Luke Harding reports from the terrorist camp in northern Iraq named by Colin Powell as a centre of the al-Qaeda international network.

<BLOCKQUOTE>If Colin Powell were to visit the shabby military compound at the foot of a large snow-covered mountain, he might be in for an unpleasant surprise. The US Secretary of State last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.'

Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking. </BLOCKQUOTE>Harding acknowledges there was a sophisticated television studio and computers in the compound and that the group is a violent bunch, having killed more than 800 opposition Kurdish fighters and failing in an assassination attempt of the Prime Minister of a neighboring town.

Giving Powell the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the camp has been dismantled since he received his information. On the other hand, maybe he purposefully was fed disinformation. Either way, it doesn't strike us as either a "smoking gun" or even reliable evidence that this outdated, out of the way compound poses any great threat to America.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Intersting info on the 'Terrorist Camp' in northern Iraq

This is the one that kept being pointed out as an Al-Queda Training Camp and link.

World Socialist Web Site?

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

I didn't say it was the Gospel.
I said it had some interestin info.

Chose what you wish to believe - or not to believe, if anything.

The second item is a completely different article.

 

[NFS4]

So which is most important?

Restoring order, water and food to the Iraqis or finding the WMD? The regime that would have and had used them in the past is now gone.

Considering this was our main reason for going in to Iraq, they better damn well find the WoMD. Hell the people are worse off now than they were under Saddam with no water/electricty, crime, looting.

The only reason that we have to restore order is b/c we're the ones who disturbed it. I think that if we had been a bit more "civil" in dealing with Saddam, all of this sh!t could have been avoided

Iraqi Freedom was the name of the war afterall. All of our resources and attention should be devoted to that, we can get around to finding the WMD's whenever.

It should have been called "Iraqi Smoke Screen." This war wasn't about the humanitarian effort...if it was, they would have gone in with a proper police force after the war effort was over. Don't get me wrong, Bush is a nice guy and a straight shooter, but this war was more about "Evil Doers" and WoMD. After 9-11, that was Bush's mission. His mission wasn't to help the "poor people of Iraq." If he wanted to do that, we could have a long time ago.

Now that we can't find any WoMD, the emphasis is being placed more on the "humanitarian effort." Gotta love politics

 

[phillyTIM]

of course he would, he's got nothin to say "GOTCHA!"

just as we were sayin' all along in his Regime's SHAM

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: NFS4

So which is most important?

Restoring order, water and food to the Iraqis or finding the WMD? The regime that would have and had used them in the past is now gone.

Considering this was our main reason for going in to Iraq, they better damn well find the WoMD. Hell the people are worse off now than they were under Saddam with no water/electricty, crime, looting.

The only reason that we have to restore order is b/c we're the ones who disturbed it. I think that if we had been a bit more "civil" in dealing with Saddam, all of this sh!t could have been avoided

Yep, those remains of 300,000 dead found so far definitely shows they were better off before we showed up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NFS4
The only reason that we have to restore order is b/c we're the ones who disturbed it. I think that if we had been a bit more "civil" in dealing with Saddam, all of this sh!t could have been avoided

Buahaha - it was oh so civil in Iraq before

And another thing, what was the past 12 years, if not trying the "civil" route? How many more years of "civility" would you liked to have seen?

CkG

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: NFS4

So which is most important?

Restoring order, water and food to the Iraqis or finding the WMD? The regime that would have and had used them in the past is now gone.

Considering this was our main reason for going in to Iraq, they better damn well find the WoMD. Hell the people are worse off now than they were under Saddam with no water/electricty, crime, looting.

The only reason that we have to restore order is b/c we're the ones who disturbed it. I think that if we had been a bit more "civil" in dealing with Saddam, all of this sh!t could have been avoided

Yep, those remains of 300,000 dead found so far definitely shows they were better off before we showed up.

And how many Iraqi soldiers did we kill on the storm through Iraq? Don't get me wrong, Saddam is an evil bastard, but at least he had some sense of control over the country with working facilties/public works.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: NFS4
The only reason that we have to restore order is b/c we're the ones who disturbed it. I think that if we had been a bit more "civil" in dealing with Saddam, all of this sh!t could have been avoided

Buahaha - it was oh so civil in Iraq before

And another thing, what was the past 12 years, if not trying the "civil" route? How many more years of "civility" would you liked to have seen?

CkG

Let's put it this way, if there was no 9-11, Saddam would be whacking off in his palace to J. Lo pics right now

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: NFS4
The only reason that we have to restore order is b/c we're the ones who disturbed it. I think that if we had been a bit more "civil" in dealing with Saddam, all of this sh!t could have been avoided

Buahaha - it was oh so civil in Iraq before

And another thing, what was the past 12 years, if not trying the "civil" route? How many more years of "civility" would you liked to have seen?

CkG

Let's put it this way, if there was no 9-11, Saddam would be whacking off in his palace to J. Lo pics right now

I disagree. This administration was going to deal with Saddam no matter what. The much maligned PNAC documents are ample indicators of that.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: NFS4
The only reason that we have to restore order is b/c we're the ones who disturbed it. I think that if we had been a bit more "civil" in dealing with Saddam, all of this sh!t could have been avoided

Buahaha - it was oh so civil in Iraq before

And another thing, what was the past 12 years, if not trying the "civil" route? How many more years of "civility" would you liked to have seen?

CkG

Let's put it this way, if there was no 9-11, Saddam would be whacking off in his palace to J. Lo pics right now

I disagree. This administration was going to deal with Saddam no matter what. The much maligned PNAC documents are ample indicators of that.

But the American people would have never supported that war had it not been for 9-11. Before then, your average American didn't give two sh!ts about foreign policy

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: NFS4
The only reason that we have to restore order is b/c we're the ones who disturbed it. I think that if we had been a bit more "civil" in dealing with Saddam, all of this sh!t could have been avoided

Buahaha - it was oh so civil in Iraq before

And another thing, what was the past 12 years, if not trying the "civil" route? How many more years of "civility" would you liked to have seen?

CkG

Let's put it this way, if there was no 9-11, Saddam would be whacking off in his palace to J. Lo pics right now

I disagree. This administration was going to deal with Saddam no matter what. The much maligned PNAC documents are ample indicators of that.

But the American people would have never supported that war had it not been for 9-11. Before then, your average American didn't give two sh!ts about foreign policy

But 9/11 did happen.

Care to reread the 2000 presidential debates? Bush specifically referenced Iraq, and how we need to deal with people such as him. Seems to me that if foreign policy is "debated" it just might be on the minds of your average american.

CkG