--- "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, they are saying that. But months ago, the US > intelligence > services said they think it is wrong to talk about > uranium from Niger > (and Niger is what this story is about -- it is a > red herring to talk > about other possible African sources).
No - Niger is what people who are _making up_ this story want it to be about. The Bush Administration was clearly citing Britain's reports of African attempts. Not Niger. In fact, the Niger report might well be true as well. The investigator who claimed that it was not true is not terribly credible, according to everyone I've spoken to on the subject. In either case, though, Bush's statement was about a British intelligence report. > > So, what you are saying is that you think the Bush > Administration > thinks that British intelligence is better than US > intelligence. _I_ think that British intelligence is better than US intelligence. I would hope that they do to, because if they do, they're right. However, as I've pointed out several times, and no one has yet responded to, the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate _agreed_ with Britain's findings. Which means that _American_ intelligence also held the exact same thing. > No, that is not the `most harsh interpretation'. A > more harsh > interpretation is that the Administration entered > the war for other > reasons, such as intimidating other Arab > dictatorships, decided not to > spell out the strategic purpose of the war to US > voters, and were > incompetent at putting together an alternative, > public story. But this is not a story backed up by any - I don't mean little, I mean _any_ - factual evidence. Most harsh interpretation _of the facts_. > Even worse, I have heard it said that the US > Administration did not > have proper back up plans for handling the loss of > their first > proposed Iraqi government and for handling the > guerilla war. Now, an > Iraqi group has been appointed by the US occupation > forces, and the US > army may be getting a handle on the guerilla war, > but both should have > been in place more than 6 weeks ago. Maybe. The argument that every plan we made needs to go flawlessly or it's a failure is, simply, one to which I don't lend much credence. Even if you were true, and there was a failure in planning - something that I am not convinced is the case - then their ability to adapt and learn a new strategy has been nothing short of astonishing. > I don't know of such a speech, and for that reason I > think the late > April inaction was some sort of incompetence. What > has not been clear > is whether it indicates a general incompetence or > whether it was the > result of incompetence in lying. This Niger story > suggests the > latter. The Niger story which is, of course, an entirely fictional one made up by the enemies of the Administration? If you say so. The argument that an Administration that - in Afghanistan and Iraq - performed so brilliantly that textbooks will be written about it a hundred years from now was suddenly overcome by fits of incompetence I find, well, less than convincing. I just don't think you understand the constraints on the resources of the American military, Bob, and I think it's that simple. More troops can't show up by waving a magic wand and wishing it were so. The Administration had what it had - what a decade and a half of brutal budget cuts had left it. That was, just barely, enough. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
