"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Oddly enough, there wwere quite a few other western leaders who had
reached
the same conclusion he had in terms of "evaluating intelligence
seriously",

And some who didn't -- Putin told Blair in public, on a press
conference, that his intelligence didn't support the conclusions
the British were publishing. The German foreign secretary,
Joschka Fischer, did the same to Powell on a visit of the latter
to Germany, something which apparently made Powell rather
angry. We don't know what Bush' visitors told him in private,
but the story now promulgated by the Neocons in the White
House, that all Western intelligence services agreed on Iraqi
WMDs, is seriously lacking in credibility.

"Prior to the war, my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was
that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction. I would also point out
that many governments that chose not to support this war - certainly the
French President Chirac, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German
intelligence certainly believed that there was WMD." David Kay, testifying
before Congress last January.

"German intelligence reported that WMD laboratories are hidden in trucks
that appear completely normal on the outside."
www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/ si/may03/middleEast3.asp

Another source indicates German views may have changed at the last
minute...: "One focus of the ongoing investigations is whether the CIA
should have known Curveball was not credible. A former U.S. official who has
reviewed the classified file said the BND warned the CIA last spring that
they had ``various problems with the source.'' Die Zeit, a German news
weekly, first reported the warning last August. The official said the BND
sent the warning after Powell first described the bio-warfare trucks in deta
il to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. It's unclear whether the
German warning about Curveball arrived before the war began on March 19."
http://www.registerguard.com/news/20....WMD.0328.html

Don't act as if the german's did not also get their intel read wrong. Nor
the French, etc.
As to the Russians and causus belli...: "Last week, Russian President
Vladimir Putin said that Russia had given the Bush administration
intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks
against the United States and its interests abroad before the Iraq war."
www.mosnews.com/news/2004/06/24/wmd.shtml

So far your arguments are not adding up with the above...


Not that a president of the USA is supposed to rely on what
other leaders tell him. George W. Bush was sending soldiers
to fight in Iraq; arguably it was his duty to seriously review
the intelligence on the threats that they might encounter there.
One did not need to be a genius or a prophet to spot the serious
weaknesses in the US and UK intelligence assesments. A little
bit of insight in the way in which such intelligence is compiled,
and a dose of common sense, would do.

You said last year (17 Feb 03): "I think that Iraq probably has a small
stockpile
left from before 1991, which escaped the attention of inspectors.
It is also likely to have a biological / chemical weapons research
program, possibly less important than those of some of its neighbours,
and probably short of materials to work with. There appears to be
no evidence for more, or for the industrial production of WMD."

Which makes it appear that you were right only in regards to the last two
sentences, but the last is a bit muddled due to Kay's noting that the Iraqis
made a destinct effort to continue developing "dual use" facilities with the
express purpose of allowing future WMD production. So you were really doing
no better than Bush, right?



But now Bush and Blair are telling us that they took everything
they were told at face value -- asked no questions -- never had
any doubts. Never mind that the UN inspectors, who actually
were in a position to verify information on the ground, reported
that US intelligence had been found to be wrong on every occasion
when they tried to verify it. Blair even claimed that, while he
believed the claim that Saddam could deploy WMD within 45
minutes, he never asked which ones!

While I have seen some references to Blair claiming immense stockpiles of
ready-to-use weapons, I don't recall Bush ever making such boldfaced claims;
he and Powell concentrated more on noting the Iraqi accounting
discrepancies, and the continuing development efforts.


It is an old rule that when politicians are given the choice between
appearing to be dishonest and appearing to be incompetent, they
will plunge for incompetence. That is unlikely to be the full thruth.
However, incompetence is bad enough.

And you therefore rank yourself as being at least as incompetent, if not
moreso, than Bush, right? Based upon the above and items like last year when
*you* were telling us that Zarqawi was not operating from Iraq (16 FEB 03);
care to change your stance on that one?



As to planning ahead, again you should read Franks' book before you
spout
off such nonsense.

Regardless of what Franks wrote -- and I don't expect his book
to appear this side of the Atlantic -- it has been acknowledged
even by the US government that planning for the post-war occupation
of Iraq was, to put it mildly, sketchy and unrealistic. But worse
than failing to predict an insurgency was not having a policy at all
for the future of Iraq; except perhaps the part that pinned its hopes
on (of all people) Chalabi. For many months after the occupation,
US policy zigzagged aimlessly, before hitting on the idea of dumping
the problems on the UN and an Iraqi transition government.

While I would admit the phase IV planning was not all that it could have
been, it was far from being the total lack of planning that you were
inferring. make the effort to get Franks book--you might learn a bit about
what phase IV planning was done, and how the situation changed as time
progressed. We surpassed pre-war Iraqi power production and distribution
levels before the end of 2003. Water production and distribution was a
similar story, IIRC. And a nation that has not known democracy is now making
its first tentative steps down that path. Not bad, IMO; and of course, there
is no longer any need to be worried about what Saddam is or is not up to.


it a bit hard to toss too many stones, especially as he has admitted his
past failures and demonstrated his own self-control since then (the
latter
fact which is the most important).

Well, I was referring to a hypothetical service of George W. Bush
in Vietnam; his conduct afterwards is immaterial to that.

Really? You have been indicting him as President for his capabilities and
decisions in the present tense, have you not?

Except
of course that, given his behaviour at the time, there was a good
chance that there would have been no later opportunity for him
to establish self-control.

But hey, you don't have a vote in the outcome anyway, right?

Right. Which is why I am strongly in favour of an EU with a
common foreign policy and defence -- it is about time we are
able to fend for ourselves.

Oh, boy! Are you gonna hold your breath until that comes about? How is the
old vaunted EU rapid reaction force doing these days, eh? heck, you can't
even get everyone onboard the same *currency*, but you think you are gonna
develop a truly unified defense and foreign policy stance? Get real.

It is not that I dislike Americans,
but it is just absolute folly to resignedly entrust our fate to
whomever they elect as president. Best case, as it looks now,
is that the worst president in US history will be replaced by
a fairly mediocre one -- welcome progress, but hardly of a
kind to inspire confidence.

Hold that thought; I am guessing your analysis here is going to be as flawed
as your thinking Zarqawi was not playing footsie in Iraq last year...

Brooks


--
Emmanuel Gustin