Comments on: Dark times http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/03/dark-times.html Cutting through the effects of the US empire Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:49:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Wallsy http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/03/dark-times.html#comment-556 Wallsy Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:51:26 +0000 http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/03/dark-times.html#comment-556 Another thing struck me too, the issue of legality and unilateralism. Gordon and the general seemed to be implying that had there been proof of proliferation, thus reneging on 1441, from Saddam's side that that fact alone would have justified invasion. They appear to be influenced by the discourse of preemptive action still. Furthermore, they were obviously unaware of the fact that Powell knew Iraq was not a threat, as did Rice. Whether or not Powell felt invasion was right or wrong is beside the point. There's even footage to prove it. The general too made the claim that the Bush Administration were hoping for a smooth transition of power following the ouster of Saddam. However, they must surely have been forewarned as to the incredible instability that the invasion would cause. It is my impression that the CIA is an ambivalent animal in this context, since there appear to be differing intelligence claims prior to the war regarding what the war would mean. Were there not doubts in the military too? Another thing struck me too, the issue of legality and unilateralism. Gordon and the general seemed to be implying that had there been proof of proliferation, thus reneging on 1441, from Saddam’s side that that fact alone would have justified invasion. They appear to be influenced by the discourse of preemptive action still. Furthermore, they were obviously unaware of the fact that Powell knew Iraq was not a threat, as did Rice. Whether or not Powell felt invasion was right or wrong is beside the point. There’s even footage to prove it. The general too made the claim that the Bush Administration were hoping for a smooth transition of power following the ouster of Saddam. However, they must surely have been forewarned as to the incredible instability that the invasion would cause. It is my impression that the CIA is an ambivalent animal in this context, since there appear to be differing intelligence claims prior to the war regarding what the war would mean. Were there not doubts in the military too?

]]> By: Wallsy http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/03/dark-times.html#comment-554 Wallsy Sat, 18 Mar 2006 02:43:04 +0000 http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/03/dark-times.html#comment-554 Hi Deep I urge you to watch the latest DemocracyNow with the chap who co-wrote the aaluminium tube exaggeration much punted as proof of profliferation before the 2003 quagmire. Paradoxically his appearance on the show was to criticise some aspects of the quagmire as regards planning following the aftermath. However, Amy Goodman and Juan pressed him on crucial issues regarding the timing of some of his assertions in the meida prior to the quagmire and how these influenced opinion, and why he didn't pull a lot of his claims sooner considering the fact, as he admitted himself, that he didn't really think the intelligence was completely sound. I got the impression he was merely squirming. Not only that, he was still selling the lie that "everyone" in the CIA had the same information. More insultingly, he even likened al Baradei's intelligence to that of the CIA's. implying that intelligence is merely a relative issue and not a matter of politics. An extremely fascinating show... Hi Deep

I urge you to watch the latest DemocracyNow with the chap who co-wrote the aaluminium tube exaggeration much punted as proof of profliferation before the 2003 quagmire. Paradoxically his appearance on the show was to criticise some aspects of the quagmire as regards planning following the aftermath. However, Amy Goodman and Juan pressed him on crucial issues regarding the timing of some of his assertions in the meida prior to the quagmire and how these influenced opinion, and why he didn’t pull a lot of his claims sooner considering the fact, as he admitted himself, that he didn’t really think the intelligence was completely sound. I got the impression he was merely squirming. Not only that, he was still selling the lie that “everyone” in the CIA had the same information. More insultingly, he even likened al Baradei’s intelligence to that of the CIA’s. implying that intelligence is merely a relative issue and not a matter of politics. An extremely fascinating show…

]]> By: Eric http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/03/dark-times.html#comment-555 Eric Thu, 01 Jan 1970 04:59:59 +0000 http://deepblade.net/journal/2006/03/dark-times.html#comment-555 Yup, heard <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/17/160232">it</a>. What an arrogant prick--"I don't know if you understand how journalism works..." Amy & Juan did a fine job. Still, the whole discussion of pre-war ``intelligence'' is a slippery business. I started formulating a post about how the <i>Times</i> treated the entire issue of Iraq & nuclear weapons. Their major post-war story was published October 3, 2004. It's bylined Barstow, Broad, and Gerth. Gordon must've been on to other projects by then. The the involvement of ISIS, David Albright, and the not-often-enough discussed Khadir Hamza (aka ``Saddam's Bombmaker''--a total fraud) needs much more elaboration. I agree with Gordon, ``It's complicated.'' Now I believe Albright to be basically very solid. But he spent a fair amount of time in the 90s running with the fraud Hamza out of ISIS, spreading all sorts of tales of Iraqi nukes, some roughly true, some false, but never properly contextualized with the Iraqgate scandal and the, yes, very complex story of the inspections in the immediate post Gulf-War 1 period (1991-1995). Yup, heard it.

What an arrogant prick–”I don’t know if you understand how journalism works…”

Amy & Juan did a fine job. Still, the whole discussion of pre-war “intelligence” is a slippery business. I started formulating a post about how the Times treated the entire issue of Iraq & nuclear weapons. Their major post-war story was published October 3, 2004. It’s bylined Barstow, Broad, and Gerth. Gordon must’ve been on to other projects by then. The the involvement of ISIS, David Albright, and the not-often-enough discussed Khadir Hamza (aka “Saddam’s Bombmaker”–a total fraud) needs much more elaboration. I agree with Gordon, “It’s complicated.” Now I believe Albright to be basically very solid. But he spent a fair amount of time in the 90s running with the fraud Hamza out of ISIS, spreading all sorts of tales of Iraqi nukes, some roughly true, some false, but never properly contextualized with the Iraqgate scandal and the, yes, very complex story of the inspections in the immediate post Gulf-War 1 period (1991-1995).

]]>