General discussion

Locked

State Dept & CIA are anti-Bush. over 500 WMD's found since 2003

By X-MarCap ·
I have known some of what they found for a couple of years.

Why did the State Department try to keep the WMDs and the situation in Iraq from being publicized.

Why did the Democrats, including those who were briefed on the Armed services committee still say "No WMDs"?

I say it was a deliberate attempt to discredit GWB, and to make Political Hay. If they could discredit him and take power away from the Republican Majority, did they care if the issue they used to win was a fabrication, as we now know it is.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

47 total posts (Page 1 of 5)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Unh?

by neilb@uk In reply to State Dept & CIA are anti ...

I don't actually understand what you're trying to say. What WMDs?

Your task - should you choose to accept it - is to treat me as an ignorant but slightly interested foreigner (I'm all of that) and explain fully with diagrams and a pointy stick. You may use long words but may not assume my background knowledge of US-centric political concepts is anything less than crap.

This post will self-destruct in the same way that an awful lot of TR posts seem to be doing recently.

:)

Collapse -

Hundreds of WMDs were found in Iraq since 2003.

by X-MarCap In reply to Unh?

The U.S. State department didn't declassify the documents along the way, and the CIA just cleared them last night... Both CIA and State Department personnel are heavily Democrats in DC about 80%-85% from what my wife's family say. We have a couple of Under Secretary of States in the family,
as well as other spooks and idjits.

Hundreds of functional WMDs have been found along the way Many by 1st MarDiv LRRPs! OOH Rah! People in the State Department and CIA had prevented the information from being published.

The U.S. State Department is loaded with people who are far left of OZ and Julian. My wife's cousin was a Deputy Under Secretary of State. He has been forcibly "retired" recently (I read it fired). He actively tried to suppress anything that would be good for the US while Bush has been in office. Virtually all of my wife's Family is in Government service. Most of them hate Bush. I can't even describe the level to which they would go to damage him. They don't even care if it would hurt the country.

I have my contacts with the Corps still. Remember I told people to wait for about another three months before saying anything about no WMDs. I had heard that the State Department was allowing CIA declassification of documents.

The purpose is that they can now try to re-influence the elections by defusing a September Surprise which was the original suggested release date for the documents. Now they DNC wants time to defuse the WMD existance being used against the Democrats in the November elections. They said the original Sept 28 deadline was too close to the elections, and likely to shape opinion against the Democratic Party. So people have worked around the clock rather than the normal 8 hour day on classification of documents. (That should be a clue that the impact would be lessened. It took the State Department 2+ years to turn the documents over to be declassified.)
It does the administration no good to have the documents declassified at this time politically. In Late September (under normal work conditions) it would have been disasterous for the Democratic party.

Collapse -

The rank and file

by TonytheTiger In reply to Hundreds of WMDs were fou ...

of most government agencies tends to lean more to the Democrats, simply because the democrats hire more people (Republicans, on the other hand, tend to buy more stuff (new office equipment, vehicles, etc).

Ironically, the reason for the Democrats doing this is that it tends to keep unemployment low, as well as driving up wages in the private sector (smaller pool of applicants).

Also ironically, the Republicans do what they do for a similar reason... buying stuff requires more people to make stuff.

They're both wrong in their thinking... but unfortunately, it appears we'll be stuck with one or the othr for the forseeable future.

Collapse -

Something you didn't think of

by jdclyde In reply to The rank and file

There is less competitiveness in government work than in private work, so Democrats would be more prone to be drawn to work here.

In the real working world you have to be ambitious to get ahead, instead of based on how long you have been punching a time clock.

Do you think Unions create Democrats or Democrats gravitate to Unions? I would say it is the second option.

The same for people that work for a college instead of a trade school. The college has a higher percentage of Democrats. This is true in the administrative side as well, compared to the administrative percentage in companies. Not as competative or demanding.

Collapse -

I honestly don't know.

by TonytheTiger In reply to Something you didn't thin ...

"There is less competitiveness in government work than in private work"

I'm not so sure about that, but I would say that there's less danger in "going for it" in government, because there's no risk in failing. Most agencies let you fall back to your old position if the new one doesn't work out for some reason, even to the point of bumping your replacememt. You're old company probably wouldn't do that :)

"In the real working world you have to be ambitious to get ahead, instead of based on how long you have been punching a time clock."

In some agencies it may be still like that, I can't speak for all of them. In the one I work for, seniority is only a tie-breaker should all other things be equal. (and if that's equal, the last 4 of your SSN is the tie breaker (how dumb is that?)).

"Do you think Unions create Democrats or Democrats gravitate to Unions? I would say it is the second option."

I honestly don't know. I only know that their idealism has overridden their common sense. Governments don't help people, people help people. Governments don't build cities, people build cities, etc. Governments are a drain on the work product of thier citizens (though many employees struggle to make it less so). It is up to the citizens to insure it's the smallest necessary drain. We've failed miserably in that respect. Now even the majority of the GOP have hopped on the "Big Government" drain , er, I mean train :)

I guess when all of the real work is gone, everyone can work for the government. Question is, who will pay them?

Collapse -

Max,JD, What are your thoughts on these questions?

by X-MarCap In reply to State Dept & CIA are anti ...

It looks like all the intelligence Departments were right after all. The scale may have been off, but not the accuracy of WMD existance.

I have long thought the CIA and State Department ever since the Carter administration was political. I was given disinformation which is deliberately wrong. (Disinfromation as you know is a deliberate lie like NO WMDs in Iraq.)

After WMD exisatance was known, why did the State Dept and CIA sit on the information? Since the armed services committee was briefed multiple times, wasn't it a deliberate effort to commit fraud by the Democratic Party menbers who had been briefed? Shouldn't they have said "Wait until the facts are in" or something other than support the party line if they had any personal ethics?

How close would the 2004 election been if the "Bush Lied" crowd had been silenced? Was the State-Department-CIA rank and file in league with the Soros-Kerry camp? That would be a much bigger scandal than Watergate.

That would be the deliberate attempt to commit fraud backed by non-elected government power.

Collapse -

My thoughts on the issue (since you asked)

by maxwell edison In reply to Max,JD, What are your tho ...

I've long thought that the whereabouts of those elusive WMDs carries a few possibilities.

Some may have been found, but for some reason it's not being disclosed. This could be for the reasons you stated (see note below), or the White House even knows about it. If it was a choice between taking heat, even to the point of putting his political life on the line, and protecting military/national security secrets, the president would take the heat. President Bush, as we can probably all agree to, does not cater to political pressure or public opinion polls. He is staying the course, and in my opinion, he has some damned good reasons for doing it.

Retired Marine Lt. General Michael DeLong (former deputy commander of CENTCOM) states that military intelligence, in the weeks during the VERY PUBLIC build-up to the war, observed very telling movement that suggested some of the WMDs were taken out of the country to Iran and Syria. The fact that a terrorist attack was thwarted in Jordan a year or so later, one that intended to kill thousands in a chemical weapons attack, also suggests they were removed from the country, as those captured weapons had to come from somewhere. (This incident, by the way, received absolutely no major network or major newspaper coverage in the United States.) And we're taking Iran's saber-rattling VERY seriously. They (the powers that be) know a lot more than we know.

Lt. General DeLong also suggests that some could have been buried, or otherwise hidden, somewhere in a country the geographical size of California. "Stockpiles" of weapons, in this case, as Lt. General Delong points out, equals biological weapons that could fit inside a few briefcases, and chemical weapons that could fit into the trailers of a few trucks. How hard would it have been to bury, somewhere in Iraq, a tractor trailer? ****, they buried a half-dozen, or so, MIG fighter jets that were discovered only because the tail of one of them was sticking out of the ground!

I've both read Lt. General DeLong's book, INSIDE CENTCOM: The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I've heard him speak. He makes a very compelling argument. Much more compelling, by the way, than the usual band of misfits known as Bush political enemies, with absolutely no credibility. Lt. General DeLong, on the other hand, is just dripping with credibility.

Was President Clinton wrong in 1998-99 when he stated, with absolute certainty, that Saddam still had WMDs? Was Secretary of State Albright wrong when she stated the same thing? Was the entire U.S. Senate wrong? Was U.S. intelligence wrong? Was British intelligence wrong? Were the Saudis wrong? Was President Bush wrong? Was military intelligence wrong? Was the United Nations wrong when they stood fast saying that Saddam DID NOT adhere to UN resolution 1441 and show that all WMDs, that were known to exist, were all destroyed? Were ALL these people wrong? Either the entire world was wrong, or these WMDs simply vanished into thin air. Call me an idiot, but I don't believe things can simply vanish into thin air.

Bottom Line: There's more going on (behind the scenes) than we know. Maintaining geopolitical stability is probably a driving factor. Maintaining an adequate level of national and military security is another. Political posturing is certainly another. The missing factor in the argument advanced by all the detractors and nay sayers is the answer to the question, where did they go? It's something they conveniently never discuss. And the elusive answer, in my opinion, speaks volumes.

Note: I'm with Neil in one regard. It sounds as though you have reasons to make the suggestion that the Department of State and the CIA are out to destroy President Bush and/or the efforts to fight terrorism. What's your support? I will say this, however. We really have TWO governments, of sorts. The one we all talk about and debate about is the elected government. But behind and between the elections we have career diplomats and bureaucrats who want to steer the government and U.S. foreign policy in certain direction, regardless of the preferences of any current administration. Presidents come and go, but career government bureaucrats just keep going and going. They certainly have agendas and preferences, and they don't all just bow to the whims and desires of the current elected leaders. So I won't doubt what you say, but I would like to see some evidence to support it.

Collapse -

By the way, the counter-argument to what I just posted is. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to My thoughts on the issue ...

....Bush lied.

Yea, right. Give me a break!

Collapse -

My wife's family is lousy through the non-elected side of the government,

by X-MarCap In reply to My thoughts on the issue ...

From Department of the Navy, to US Information Agency, to the Dept of Agriculture all GS 13 and above... Ny wife's nephew was a State Department intern, and Her cousin was in the State Dept.

Since the DC area is 80% democratic, and that is where the agencies are, the only Republican in her family is in the Dept. of Agriculture.

Father's Day was a Family reunion in Moundsville WV. I heard how depressed all of them were that were in information and intelligence and the State department. It was obvious Good news for Bush was coming.

Collapse -

I have been trying to get some statements from State Department personnel

by X-MarCap In reply to My thoughts on the issue ...

They will not help...

Look at the Valerie Plame incident. **** Armitage was the leaker... The SP still went after the administration in obvious misfeasance and malfeasance.

Where are the anti-Bushies now on this issue.

**** Armitage was told by his superiors not to resign, or make public statements...

Back to Community Forum
47 total posts (Page 1 of 5)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums