Are the french right? is Bush telling the truth?

Having just watched the French foreign minister on BBC being grilled in an interview about Frances decision to not support America.

He said "We have been told by the CIA that there are no WMD in Iraq"
The interviewers said, "Does this mean that Bush is not telling the Truth?"
He replied something like" Yes, America decided to invade regardless of the facts and that is what they will do"

Now if the CIA told them (and its not something you make up he was adament about it) that there were no WMD then even in the top levels of the administration there is divided opinion.

Not only that it means that there is a deliberate attempt to dupe the world to the true situation in Iraq...

Bush, Powell, etal are lying....

.. if the french minister is correct....



[Edited on 13-2-2003 by Netchicken]

Yes they're lying; Powell's speech to the UN has been splayed open to reveal: old data, plagerized assumption and claims refuted from people on the ground in Iraq.
No one from the administration has answered the all important question: Where is the Clear and Present Danger?
Now we hear that North Korea has a delivery system capable of reaching Hawaii & Alaska. But, Where is the Clear and Present Danger?, remains unexplained.

I heard a report from an x-CIA agent that the U.S. knows where Saddam is hiding his WMD. The reason for the secracy is they will be the first place's hit,and they don't want Saddam to move them.
They are also afraid Saddam has bugged the rooms the inspector's stay at,and that it is possible that some of the inspectors are informing Iraq where they are going to searching.It may be speculation,but I think it is a good idea to becareful who we give info too.
I don't think Bush is lying so much,but more not telling every thing.

I just don't see the CIA saying that to the French - if there wasn't WMD's I would imagine they wouldn't comment. But to comment that there wasn't WMD's, I just can't believe that. Would be interesting to watch that though NC. Would like to know who in the CIA told them that. Was it a former Scott Ritter-type agent? The CIA doesn't fully share info with our own government (congressman always complain about not getting info) therefore I don't believe they are sharing intelligence with the Frecnh.

I think the french are lyeing ... They prolly don't want to see this war continued and are trying to discredit the USA and make us look bad ...

I personally think a clear and present danger has already been defined.

Iraq has WMD's that are missing ... Why?

N. Korea has ballistic capabilities to hit the USA and possibly two nuclear warhead's. They have broken a treaty they signed and agreed with, without notifying anyone as to what they were doing.

Osama Bin-Laden has again resurfaced speaking of a partnership with Iraq for going to war with the USA ...

If you fail to see a clear and present danger, your prolly brain dead ...

I guess that when your first video game is 'Quake' and not 'Pong', unsubstantiated speculation passes for clear & present danger that warrants the death of innocents & your own countrymen, huh? But then again, Bob & TC were pinballers so go figure!

Maybe this will serve some reality for you:

77,000 body bags

11feb03

FEARS that Iraq will inflict heavy casualties on British and American troops intensified yesterday when it emerged the Pentagon had ordered almost five times the number of body bags it requested before the last Gulf War.

Within weeks it will have more than 77,000 bags at the ready, compared with 16,000 in 1991.

FULL STORY

( the monthly recurring order is what bothers me)

I've played pong and I am a Quake III nut at the moment - what's wrong w/ pinball anyway?

You're a NY'er so I will go slow, , Iraqi forces are much weaker then in '91 - the US/Uk is stronger - less deaths. Nor could I see the US fighting a war that would cause that many deaths.

[Edited on 14-2-2003 by Bob88]

Can anyone give a link to texts (English or French) on this.
As the nation that invented diplomacy (the French (whatever failings others might attribute to them) are unlikely to have been as specific as the postings suggest.
E.g. they may have said "have not found any" with a "yet" implied (and that to the best of my knowwledge is at present the actual situation) that the media might have misinterepreted as a definitive statement that "there are no..".

I don't think the government would tell us to prepare for attack's in our own country, if there wouldn't be any. They currently have much much much more intel than what the new's give's the general public. When they say prepare, you best move your arse and prepare. I've already started ... Any US citizen's here should do the same.

National Public Radio had a bit of a blurb on that this morning -- the rpeort mentioned things that most of us 'over 30' crowd knew: that presidents "overstate" the case for action when they want to push the country into war. This is actually true of any leader, not just American presidents. They gave some specifics (and I remember hints of them at the time in question) but I can't fish out any details.

Yes, I think he's overstating the case.

You sure are a fan of the NPR Bryd! Me too! I listen everyday on the long drive in - and home.

But - would putting stingers in DC have been an overstatement prior to 9/11? I think so. You just don't know these days.


[Edited on 14-2-2003 by Bob88]

I cannot comment on whether Bush et al are lying, or if the French are blowing smoke (gee imagine that!!) However, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the NSA knows where EVERYTHING that could potentially be used for WMD would be... Besides taping every phone in Iraq, monitoring every radio wave, hacking every computer, and having the most sophisticated satelite surveilance in the world (including BrightEyes, and a newer development on the shuttle, see my post about nuclear payload), they also have access to HAARP.

HAARP has been publicly described as an over the horizon early warning radar, and has been said to be able to act as ground penetrating imagining radar, returning images and compositional analysis from under ground bunkers, totally remotely.

I have a hard time believing that we are still searching blindly for WMDs there.... why they havent come out more fully (possibly for fear of revealing the HAARP or other abilities) I cannot say, and maybe it is telling why they dont....

Good point Estragon, no there isn't anything written, it was a BBC debate on the world service as mentioned earlier, I saw it at about 2am my time whilst watching NZ beat the Windies at cricket live in South Africa

It was very passionate and the point was repeated as the interviewer said things like "how did france get this information?" and the guy replied a couple of times that their security service has close ties with the CIA.

It was definitive, he added things like "they may have some low level weapons but thats all".

Made me wish that we had as demanding an interviewer as this guy was, and as passionate a politician as the french guy was...

Originally posted by Estragon
Can anyone give a link to texts (English or French) on this.
As the nation that invented diplomacy (the French (whatever failings others might attribute to them) are unlikely to have been as specific as the postings suggest.
E.g. they may have said "have not found any" with a "yet" implied (and that to the best of my knowwledge is at present the actual situation) that the media might have misinterepreted as a definitive statement that "there are no..".

" Are the french right? is Bush telling the truth? "

What a title ! I don't know if Bush is telling the truth, but I'm sure that the french are wrong !!!

Anyway, their nuclear powered aircraft carrier " Charles De Gaulle " is now in the Mediterean Sea and he's heading to the Gulf.

Ultra,

Their nuclear powered aircraft carrier is headed to the gulf of .... ?????

Please don't tell me it's anywhere near the USA

yeah - it's on the way to the Gulf. I read that somewhere also. Headed there to do 'Greenpeace interdiction.' ( I kill myself, lol). If true, that's ironic and hyprocritical to put it simply.

Evidence in Britain proves that Blair has less information and proof than he claims.
why else would they produce a dossier on WMD's in Iraq plagerised from information contained in a document produced before Gulf war 1 and various internet sites.

Blair has a hell of a lot of egg on his face over that, and hasn't really given a statement about it other than an official memo stating that the document came from a variety of external sources.

We know that the UN inspectors say they found no conclusive evidence of WMD's and we've recently had EX inspectors on TV saying there were no WMD's in Iraq.

pretty much ever investigative reporter including the exhead of British foreign intelligence have stated that there are no WMD's in Iraq, and finally, though I know few of you put credence on it, Saddam has said there are no wmd's in Iraq.

The press conference given by powell has been ripped to shreds by practically every "expert" the BBC could lay their hands on, all of them stating pretty infatically that they in no way demonstrate Iraq is building WMD's and finally to top it off, Colin also stated that therewas no "smoking gun"

No soild evidence only speculation.

If all these people are saying nothings there, and france is cklaiming the CIA told them nothing was there, 'd say thats a hefty build up of evidence suggesting that Bush's contention is false. Its certainly far more evidence than those stating Iraq has WMDs have managed to come up with.

and, as net said. If your the priminister of a country you don't just say "the CIA told us there was nothing there" when your on the brink of a global conflict just because you feel like being a little tetchy.

If he said this, I'd say the evidence points towards it being the truth.

The real question then, would by, why did the CIA tell him?
what purpose does imporoving frances anti war position serve the CIA?

First, the French have a long history of being contrary.

Second, would you share utmost top secret info with a country you can't trust?

Third, it's possible that the story was cooked up to cover their humiliation:

Us: "Oh, pleeeeze join us, France!"
Them: "No, we du not wish to at this time."
Us: "Well, okay, then; maybe next time."
-- weeks later --
Them: "Excuzemuah, but aren't you going to beg us some more?"
Us: "Go away, we're busy preparing for a war you said you wouldn't join."
Them, running to the media: "We have information that was shared by their intelligence - honest!!!!!"

My indulgence for the day.

Originally posted by Estragon
Can anyone give a link to texts (English or French) on this.
As the nation that invented diplomacy (the French (whatever failings others might attribute to them) are unlikely to have been as specific as the postings suggest.
E.g. they may have said "have not found any" with a "yet" implied (and that to the best of my knowwledge is at present the actual situation) that the media might have misinterepreted as a definitive statement that "there are no..".

Specifically,No I can't.However the British are not bad when it comes to the use of diplomatic language.Have others noticed that when the Americans talk of WMD's or links to terrorism they never allow for the possibility that they may be wrong.The British with the same evidence always leave doubt in their language.commonly we can see it in the use of "I believe"as opposed to"I know"the use of "may"and "could".This leads me to believe that there is no evidence or at least weak circumstantial evidence.I believe the Americans are lying,The Brit are just being "economical with the truth",and perhaps the French and Germans are being honests.

Originally posted by e-nonymous
Ultra,

Their nuclear powered aircraft carrier is headed to the gulf of .... ?????

Please don't tell me it's anywhere near the USA

Noooo, don't worry. It's near Mexico. The gulf of Mexico. I have heard that France was looking to do war to Mexico.