| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
Friday, July 18, 2003; Page A19 The Niger uranium flap has achieved the status of midsummer frenzy, a molehill become a mountain in the absence of competing news stories. It was but one bit of intelligence out of dozens about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and, by any measure, hardly the most important. Nonetheless, it was more than likely false, thus giving an opening to the Democrats, desperate for some handle to attack President Bush's huge advantage on the issue of national security. With weapons of mass destruction yet unfound, the Niger blunder opens the way to the broad implication that the president is a liar or a dissimulator who took the country to war under false pretenses. How exactly does this line of reasoning work? The charge is that the president was looking for excuses to go to war with Hussein and that the weapons-of-mass-destruction claims were just a pretense. Aside from the fact that Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was posited not only by Bush but also by just about every intelligence service on the planet (including those of countries that opposed war as the solution), one runs up against this logical conundrum: Why then did Bush want to go to war? For fun and recreation? Because of some cowboy compulsion? The wilder critics have attempted wag-the-dog theories: war as a distraction from general political woes (Paul Krugman quotes the Robert De Niro character advising the president: "You want to win this election, you better change the subject. You wanna change this subject, you better have a war.") or war as a distraction from a lousy economy. This is ridiculous. Apart from everything else, war is a highly dangerous political enterprise. No one had any idea that Baghdad would fall in three weeks and with so few casualties. Just as no one had any idea how costly and bloody the post-victory occupation would be. On the contrary, the war was a huge political gamble. There was no popular pressure to go to war. There was even less foreign pressure to go to war. Bush decided to stake his presidency on it nonetheless, knowing that if things went wrong -- and indeed they might still -- his political career was finished. ************************************************** MY POINT OF POSTING THIS IS RIGHT HERE, BABY. I JUST WANTED TO PINT OUT THAT SOMEONE ELSE BESIDES ME THINKS THIS WAY It is obvious he did so because he thought that, post-9/11, it was vital to the security of the United States that Hussein be disarmed and deposed. ************************************************** Under what analysis? That Iraq posed a clear and imminent danger, a claim now being discounted by the critics because of the absence thus far of weapons of mass destruction? No. That was not the president's case. It was, on occasion, Tony Blair's, and that is why Blair is in such political trouble in Britain. But in Bush's first post-9/11 State of the Union address (January 2002), he framed Iraq as part of a larger and more enduring problem, the overriding threat of our time: the conjunction of terrorism, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction. And unless something was done, we faced the prospect of an infinitely more catastrophic 9/11 in the future. Later that year, in a speech to the United Nations, he spoke of the danger from Iraq not as "clear and present" but "grave and gathering," an obvious allusion to Churchill's "gathering storm," the gradually accumulating threat that preceded the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. And then nearer the war, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush plainly denied that the threat was imminent. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." Bush was, on the contrary, calling for action precisely when the threat was not imminent because, "if this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions . . . would come too late." The threat had not yet even fully emerged, Bush was asserting, but nonetheless it had to be faced because it would only get worse. Hussein was not going away. The sanctions were not going to restrain him. Even his death would be no reprieve, as his half-mad sons would take over. The argument was that Hussein had to be removed eventually and that with Hussein relatively weakened, isolated and vulnerable, now would be more prudent and less costly than later. He was right. In fact, Bush's case was simply a more elaborate and formal restatement of Bill Clinton's argument in 1998 that, left unmolested, Hussein would "go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." That was true when Clinton said it. It was true when Bush said it. The difference is that Bush did something about it. There, I have said my peace. Now I leave you all to your usual spitting and protestations and anger, plus your closed minded bullishness. There will be no argument or retort from me. It took, what, 2 1/2 years to learn, but I finally caught on. |
why should the vulnerable young be expected to place their lives on the line so as to resolve internationl problems that seasoned political leaders have willfully engineered(?)...including our own( with eyes closed and backs turned,of course). that stradegy parallels with the hussein insanity... humans are dispensable beings...as insignificant is the value of life. |
quick breakdown of some lies: LIE #1 Purported Bush Fact 1: "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. " Source: Bush cites the United Nations Special Commission [UNSCOM] 1999 Report to the UN Security Council. But most all the Report's numbers are estimates, in which UNSCOM had varying degrees of confidence. In addition, UNSCOM did not specifically make the claim that Bush attributes to it. Instead, the Report only mentions precursor materials ("growth media") that might be used to develop anthrax. One must make a number of additional assumptions to produce the "over 25,000 liters of anthrax" the President claimed. Earlier the same month, in a January 23 document, the State Department, similarly cited the UNSCOM report, although noticeably more accurately than the President: "The UN Special Commission concluded that Iraq did not verifiably account for, at a minimum, 2160kg of growth media. This is enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax.." (Emphasis added.) State does not explain how it projected a thousand liters more than the president. And two days after the State of the Union, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage addressed the UNSCOM estimates in a more truthful light: as a reference to the" biological agent that U.N. inspectors believe Iraq produced." (Emphasis added.) It short, in the State of the Union, the president transformed UNSCOM estimates, guesses, and approximations into a declaration of an exact amounts, which is a deception. He did the same with his statement about Botulinum toxin. LIE #2 Purported Bush Fact 2: "The Union Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it." Source: Bush cited the same UNSCOM Report. Again, he transformed estimates, or best guesses - based on the work of the UNSCOM inspectors and informants of uncertain reliability - into solid fact. His own State Department more accurately referred to the same information as "belief," not fact: "Iraq declared 19,000 liters (of Botulinum toxin) [but the] UN believes it could have produced more than double that amount." (Emphasis added.) LIE #3 Purported Bush Fact 3: "Our intelligence sources estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials." Source: Here, at least Bush admits that he is drawing upon estimates - but this time, he leaves out other qualifiers that would have signaled the uncertainty his own "intelligence sources" felt about these purported facts. (Emphasis added.) In October 2002, a CIA report claimed that Iraq "has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX." Bush omitted the "probably." The CIA also added still more caveats: "More than 10 years after the Gulf war, gaps in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains a stockpile of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard." (Emphases added.) Bush, his speechwriters, and his advisers left all these caveats out. How could they have? Did they not think anyone would notice the deceptions? LIE #4 Purported Bush Fact 4: "U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them." Source: Bush cites "U.S. intelligence" for this information, but it appears to have first come from UNSCOM. If so, he seems to have double the number of existing munitions that might be, as he argued "capable of delivering chemical agents." UNSCOM's report, in its declassified portions, suggests that UNSCOM "supervised the destruction of nearly 40,000 Chemical munitions (including rockets, artillery, and Aerial bombs 28,000 of which were filled)." And UNSCOM's best estimate was that there were15,000 - not 30,000 - artillery shells unaccounted for. The CIA's October 2002 report also acknowledges that "UNSCOM supervised the destruction of more than 40,000 chemical munitions." Yet none of its declassified documents support Bush's contention in the State of the Union that 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons remain unaccounted for. Where did Bush's number come from? Was it real - or invented? LIE #5 Purported Bush Fact 5: "From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them." Source: The three informants have still not been identified - even though the Administration now has the opportunity to offer asylum to them and their families, and then to disclose their identities, or at least enough identifying information for the public to know that they actually exist, and see why the government was prone to believe them. Moreover, there is serious controversy as to whether the mobile weapons labs have been found. After the war, the CIA vigorously claimed two such labs had been located. But Iraqi scientists say the labs' purpose were to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. And many months later, no other Iraqi scientists - or others with reason to know - have been found to contradict their claims. Meanwhile, the State Department has publicly disputed the CIA (and DIA) claim that such weapons labs have been found. All informant intelligence is questionable. Based on this intelligence, the President should have said that "we believe" that such labs existed - not that "we know" that they do. "Belief" opens up the possibility we could be wrong; claimed "knowledge" does not. As with his other State of the Union statements, the President presented belief as fact, and projected a certainty that seems to have been entirely unjustified - a certainty on the basis of which many Americans, trusting their President, supported the war. LIE #6 Purported Bush Fact 6: "The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb." Source: The IAEA did provide some information to this effect, but the IAEA's own source was Iraq itself. According to Garry B. Dillon, the 1997-99 head of IAEA's Iraq inspection team, Iraq was begrudgingly cooperating with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections until August 1998. Moreover, a crucial qualifier was left out: Whatever the program looked like in the early or mid-1990s, by 1998, the IAEA was confident it was utterly ineffective. As the IAEA's Dillon further reports, as of 1998, "there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goals of producing a nuclear weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for production of amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." (Emphases added) Later, IAEA's own January 20, 2003 Update Report to the UN's Security Council reiterated the very same information Dillon had reported. It is deceptive to report Iraq's 1990's effort at a nuclear program without also reporting that - according to a highly reliable source, the IAEA - that attempt had come to nothing as of 1998. It is even more deceptive to leave this information out and then to go on - as Bush did - to suggest that Iraq's purportedly successful nuclear program was now searching for uranium, implying it was operational when it was not. In making this claim, Bush included his now discredited sixteen word claim LIE #7 Purported Bush Fact 7: "The British government has learned Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Source: Media accounts have shown that the uranium story was untrue - and that at least some in the Bush Administration knew it. I will not reiterate all of the relevant news reports here, but I will highlight a few. The vice president's office had questions about the Niger uranium story. Ambassador Wilson was dispatched to learn the truth and found it was counterfeit information. Wilson advised the CIA and State Department that the Niger documents were forgeries, and presumably the vice president learned these facts. The Niger uranium story was reportedly removed from Bush's prior, October 7, 2002 speech because it was believed unreliable - and it certainly became no more reliable thereafter. Indeed, only days after Bush's State of the Union, Colin Powell refused to use the information in his United Nation's speech because he did not believe it reliable. Either Bush's senior advisers were aware of this hoax, or there was a frightening breakdown at the National Security Council - which is designed to avoid such breakdowns. Neither should be the case. In fact, it is unconscionable, under the circumstances, that the uranium fabrication was included in the State of the Union. And equally weak, if not also fake, was Bush's final point about Saddam's unconventional weapons. LIE #8 Purported Bush Fact 8: "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam Hussein] has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Source: Bush is apparently referring to the CIA's October 2002 report - but again, qualifiers were left out, to transform a statement of belief into one of purported fact. The CIA report stated that "Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern.All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program.Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs." (Emphases added). By January 20, 2003 the IAEA - which has more expertise than the CIA in the matter - had completed its investigation in Iraq of the aluminum tubes. It concluded that, as the Iraqi government claimed, the tubes had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, rather they were part of their rocket program. Thus, eight days before Bush's State of the Union, the IAEA stated in its report to the Security Council, "The IAEA's analysis to date indicates that the specifications of the aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets. While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for such use." In short, Bush claimed the tubes were "suitable for nuclear weapons production" when only a week earlier, the IAEA - which had reason to know - plainly said that they were not. Today, of course, with no nuclear facilities found, it is clear that the evidence that the IAEA provided was correct remember when spunk said he thought we went to war to protect Israels interests? anyone? remember when he said that if he thought the prez lied, he'd join us in asking to impeach? bet he never thought it would come to this.... backed in a corner... ...and his post above still doesn't explain why going to war was necessary right then and there, why UN inspections had to cease when they did, why if there was no 'imminent threat' why a peaceful solution was never given a chance by the US to come forward... several countries proposed ideas, forces from within Iraq expressed interest in a coup, none of these things were given time or effort because Bush pushed straight forward for war... sorry spunk, your explanation bears no fruit, and thats because of all of Bush's own actions and words, the deeds he didn't do vs. the things he did, and not what you think my set opinions are. |
"The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one" "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than to a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies" - Adolf Hitler |
He had to go. Anyone that actually beleives that he voluntarily disarmed himself after the inspectors left in '98 is not worth debating with, because they already live in fantasy land. Myself, the administration, and the intelligence community is NOT backed into any kind of "corner". In any intelligence situation, you are not going to get a smoking gun from one peice of information. It is, and always has been a puzzle. You HAVE to look at the whole picture, because single peices can be torn apart easily, without knowing the other pieces that connect to it. The funniest fucking thing is that before the US went to war, there were no nations that disputed that hussien had wmd, the dispute was how to handle it. Britian STILL swears that the uranium/africa connection was and is true. That they drew their conclusions from more then just one piece of paper. Take a hint from them and look at more then one source. The CIA has already been proven ineffective. In fact, they said there was no evidence to support allegations that any terrorist group was planning any sort of massive attack just before 9/11. The reasons why the CIA was ineffective should be debated later, away from the heat of this discussion. Because I am not attempting to blame the CIA for the current flap. |
as a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating the truth or falsehood concerning these issues addressed, the info you've provided is abundant. however,I am skeptical to accept any statement for fact in the political arena...as our only prevailing defense we do have our opinions. in this case, we are not privy to literally having been an active part in these matters... we have no experiential evidence to back up, or to even claim to know, what the facts really are. then there's subjectivity... we can only go on what we hear via the media,or what we see in print, likewise. we cannot discern absolutely that which is factual versus that which is an allegation based on reports, testimonies, and documents. I do believe that the proof is in the pudding... where's the pudding? |
He had to go." I agree with the last sentence, at least. We're talking abou whether or not war was the answer spunk, war AT THAT TIME - if it was necessary THEN and ONLY THEN and if that was the only solution, as well as if that is the real reason Bush wanted the war. Try to keep up. "Anyone that actually beleives that he voluntarily disarmed himself after the inspectors left in '98 is not worth debating with, because they already live in fantasy land." spunk, Saddam is fo fucking crazy anything could have happened and you know it. "Myself, the administration, and the intelligence community is NOT backed into any kind of "corner". " yes you are, as you seem to forget the burden of proof is on you, and pointing that the British still stand by documents proven to be forgeries, and other documents they refuse to release, doesn't help. "In any intelligence situation, you are not going to get a smoking gun from one peice of information. It is, and always has been a puzzle. You HAVE to look at the whole picture, because single peices can be torn apart easily, without knowing the other pieces that connect to it. " If you're missing important pieces to a puzzle, you don't really have a picture. You can speculate, but if you're wrong, its your fault, not the puzzles fault. Look at the facts I presented, the case is clearly made that Bush took speculative intelligence and presented it as FACT. Tell me why, why why (and i demand an answer to this) why he is not responsible if what he presents as fact cannot be proven, is never proven, or proven false. "The funniest fucking thing is that before the US went to war, there were no nations that disputed that hussien had wmd, the dispute was how to handle it. " that doesnt mean anything spunk, especially since most nations still think Hussein had WMD. That isnt an excuse though, if Bush is so sure but then cant find them, like I said again and again, it either shows that a) everyone believed "the big lie" as Hitler spoke about above till it became common knowledge, or b) they were there and Bush hasnt found them... b) is just as bad as a) because since there wasn't a real postwar plan, REAL terrorists might have those weapons, and the US could be in more danger now than when they went in... more proof that war was not the answer, rather than a peaceful solution. "Britian STILL swears that the uranium/africa connection was and is true. " And they wont (can't?) prove it. "That they drew their conclusions from more then just one piece of paper." Oh dear jesus. You just gave away that you haven't really looked at all those documents, you havent spunk, have you? "Take a hint from them and look at more then one source. The CIA has already been proven ineffective." no, I'd say they've moreso been proven that they were ineffective in finding what Bush wanted them to find. You can't prove they didn't do the best job they could and that theres nothing there, which is one of many many possibilities... "In fact, they said there was no evidence to support allegations that any terrorist group was planning any sort of massive attack just before 9/11. " again, there are some that say otherwise, and noone will know unless theres an inquiry. An inquiry Bush is blocking. "The reasons why the CIA was ineffective should be debated later, away from the heat of this discussion. Because I am not attempting to blame the CIA for the current flap." true. However if you think the CIA is so bad, what does it say of Bush to defend them like has, instead of getting mad and supporting an investigation into this mess? Why, why, why, did the Republican controlled Senate stop it? |
No, it is not available to me, publically or otherwise. That idiot that reported to the CIA about the document everyone is having heart attacks over did not even look at it either. |
Tell me why based on what they will ALLOW us to see, we should trust them on what the DONT want us to see? and answer the other questions dimlu |
if your goal is to shake my faith in this country, it's direction, and it's leadership, then forget it. There has not been enough firm evidence to convince me that the president puprosely lied to go to war with Iraq. |
It is 10 pages long (the article).I have not read it all yet |
Wasnt the Starr report, something like 10,000. If the administration isnt backed into a corner why do they keep juggling their response to the yellowcake matter? the response has been all over the map. first they said they shouldnt have said it. then they said that "technically" its true as it cites British intel. *brilliant Condi, way to spin that Doctorate of yours in a doublespeak kind of way* then Tenet took the fall even though it was clear they knew it was bogus. meanwhile you have bush defending his decision to go to war, even when thats not the question. thats all he can muster. and on and on and on and on.... spunk, in one of the most thoughtful and well constructed posts i think i ve ever seen you write....its evident you are full of one thing. Faith. Your posts and the opinion within makes a leap of faith which most of us are not willing to accept in light of 9/11. Some are. Its a matter of what people will do when they're scared. and i don 't think rowlf has any interest in shaking your faith in this country. i've never seen him utter anything of the sort. i think rowlf, like many of us, are just sick of being tweaked, tooled and otherwise made a chump of. last night i got an opportunity to corner the stage manager for ABC, i think he did Kopple's show and some others. I asked what the fuck was happening, why they were asleep on the job, why no one is asking the right questions. And I used to dig Kopple. He was a bit defensive. In answering, he asked what i prefered to watch. I said the Daily Show. He said, "fair enough". Im not sure what that has to do with anything, but i thought it was funny. |
Then you'll have no problem debating with us. I don't recall anyone here ever expressing that opinion, except you when you were accusing us of expressing it. "There has not been enough firm evidence to convince me that the president puprosely lied to go to war with Iraq." Will there ever be? And, in other news: link Also, I saw an interview (on Wolf Blitzer Reports, waiting for transcript) with a former lieutenant general and director of the NSA who is a serious critic of Bush's manipulation of intelligence. Are you going to argue with a former general and NSA director, dimlu? |
between rummy, bush, condi, cheney, etc there is a lot of juggling. I don't understand it |
Just use your Clinton ripping skillz. Don't understand it...Jeez...Sorry, d00d, but that's bullshit. |
one minute someone is appoligizing for something they don't need to be appoligizing for, and the next, someone else is saying they have nothing to appoligize for. Bush & Co fumbled this one badly. this shit is way overboard |
|
I don't care about your own personal faith in god, your country, I only care about facts and figures. But I think if you were in a country with a leader (republican, democrat, who cares) that didnt lie and beat around the truth or fuck interns or start wars to wag the dog (thats not just Bush btw) you'd have more faith. Most of the American public saying these seemingly stupid things are not so much stupid as they are faithful, and you spunk are at the edge of them, teetering into our abyss of cynicism. If you can distrust Clinton you can distrust Bush. Just look at the facts, and you'll understand. Its about distrusting all politicians till they can learn to become trustworthy. Local politicians = caring, responsible, anything above = bought and paid for so many times before they even get into the senate or the white house that they from then on answer to everyone BUT their own constituency. And yes, there are questions you did not answer... examples... "Tell me why, why why (and i demand an answer to this) why he is not responsible if what he presents as fact cannot be proven, is never proven, or proven false. " "However if you think the CIA is so bad, what does it say of Bush to defend them like has, instead of getting mad and supporting an investigation into this mess? Why, why, why, did the Republican controlled Senate stop it?" and many others on the other impeachment thread |
a longer list of lies and half truths Weapons "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt … that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons" The Prime Minister's foreword to the dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002 After over three months of inspections, the UN weapons inspectors reported on 6 March that "No proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections." If Britain had any intelligence to indicate that Iraq had continued to produce prohibited weapons, where was it when it could have been checked out by inspectors? "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt .. that he [Saddam Hussein] continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons" The Prime Minister's foreword to the dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002 IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council on 7 March 2003 that "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." "We know that this man has got weapons of mass destruction. That sounds like a slightly abstract phrase, but what we are talking about is chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses, bacilli and anthrax—10,000 litres of anthrax—that he has. We know that he has it, Dr. Blix points that out and he has failed to account for that." Jack Straw to the House of Commons, 17 March 2003 The UN has never claimed that Iraq "has" these weapons, but that Iraq had certain amounts of weapons before 1991 or materials to build these weapons, and it hasn't adequately explained what happened to them. As Hans Blix said in September 2002, "this is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction. If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons I would take it to the Security Council." "There is no doubt about the chemical programme, the biological programme, indeed the nuclear weapons programme. All that is well documented by the United Nations." Tony Blair, 30 May 2003 The UN has not found any evidence of any on-going programmes since the mid-1990s. Dr Blix said on 23 May that "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not." "Iraq has chemical and biological agents and weapons available [..] from pre-Gulf War stocks". Prime Minister's dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002 The claim that Iraq has managed to retain extensive stockpiles of these weapons for 12 years is not plausible. All chemical and biological agents that Iraq produced before 1991 - with the one exception of the chemical agent of mustard gas - would have degenerated by now. "plants formerly associated with the chemical warfare programme have been rebuilt. These include the chlorine and phenol plant at Fallujah 2 near Habbaniyah." Prime Minister's dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002 All eight of the sites mentioned in the Prime Minister's dossier were visited by inspectors, who found no evidence of prohibited activities at any of them. At Fallujah II, the inspectors reported that: "The chlorine plant is currently inoperative". "According to intelligence, Iraq has retained up to 20 Al Hussein missiles … They could be used with conventional, chemical or biological warheads and, with a range of up to 650km, are capable of reaching a number of countries in the region including Cyprus, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel." Prime Minister's dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002 There has been no sign of these missiles, and the government has downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq since the invasion began. Chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus soon after September, indicating that the government did not take its own claims seriously. "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa". Prime Minister's dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002 Mr Blair asserts that this claim is still true, but even the US administration accepts that there is no reliable evidence for it. The IAEA, to whom the government has a responsibility to give any credible information about nuclear-related sales, has not received any information other than the infamous forged Niger documents. Saddam Hussein's "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." The Prime Minister's foreword to the dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002 Mr Blair himself contradicted this claim when he said on 28 April that Iraq had begun to conceal its weapons in May 2002, and that had meant that they could not have been used. The supposed source for this claim is one individual who was in Iraq's military: he or she has not been produced to provide evidence for this claim. "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." President Bush, 7 October 2002 This claim was repeatedly rubbished by the International Atomic Energy Agency, who observed that the tubes were being used for artillery rockets, but the US administration kept making it. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges. "The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure." President Bush, 28 January 2003 The UN in fact drew the opposite conclusion. In March, UN inspectors reported: "it seems unlikely that significant undeclared quantities of botulinum toxin could have been produced, based on the quantity of media unaccounted for." "By 1998, UN experts agreed that the Iraqis had perfected drying techniques for their biological weapons programs." US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, 5 February 2003 Drying technology is important because only dried biological agents can be stored for years. The UN has never claimed that Iraq had perfected these techniques. In fact, in March they recorded that it "has no evidence that drying of anthrax or any other agent in bulk was conducted." "Saddam Hussein...has the wherewithal to develop smallpox" US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, 5 February 2003 The UN recorded in March 2003 that "there is no evidence that Iraq had possessed seed stocks for smallpox or had been actively engaged in smallpox research". "When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp." US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, 5 February 2003 This camp was found to contain no suspicious materials. A journalist from ABC who entered the camp with US forces reported, "A specialized biochemical team scoured the rubble for samples. They wore protective masks as they entered a building they suspected was a weapons lab, but found nothing." "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." President George W. Bush, address to the nation, 18 March 2003 The "most lethal weapons" are nuclear weapons. Unlike the US, Iraq has never possessed nuclear weapons. "The evidence in respect of Iraq was so strong that the Security Council on the 8th of November said unanimously that Iraq's proliferation and possession of the weapons of mass destruction and unlawful missile systems, as well as its defiance of the United Nations, pose – and I quote – 'a threat to international peace and security'." Foreign secretary Jack Straw, interview of 14 May 2003 There have been repeated attempts by the government to claim that the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1441 demonstrated that everyone accepted that Iraq possessed prohibited weapons. This is untrue: it claims that Iraq was not complying with inspectors, but nowhere asserts that Iraq possessed these weapons. Jack Straw here is wilfully misinterpreting one clause of the resolution, which stated in the abstract that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was a threat to international peace: it did not accuse Iraq of doing this, because most countries on the Security Council did not believe that Iraq was engaged in proliferation. Inspections and Iraq's concealment of weapons "We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports" Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 3 February 2003 Most of this "intelligence report" turned out to be cribbed from three on-line articles which were jumbled together sometimes in an incoherent manner. "Escorts are trained, for example, to start long arguments with other Iraqi officials 'on behalf of UNMOVIC' while any incriminating evidence is hastily being hidden behind the scenes." The dossier of February 2003 This claim was contradicted by the weapons inspectors. Chief UN inspector of Hans Blix told the Security Council on 14 February 2003 that "Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly ... we note that access to sites has so far been without problems". "Journeys are monitored by security officers stationed on the route if they have prior intelligence. Any changes of destination are notified ahead by telephone or radio so that arrival is anticipated. The welcoming party is a give away." The dossier of February 2003 Hans Blix told the Security Council on 14 February that "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming." "Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs." US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, 5 February 2003 Hans Blix had suggested in December that Iraq should give sets of names in stages: "Iraq may proceed in pyramid fashion, starting from the leadership in programmes, going down to management, scientists, engineers and technicians but excluding the basic layer of workers". This seems to be what Iraq did: it provided lists of 117 persons for the chemical sector, 120 for the biological sector and 156 persons for the missile sector by the end of December 2002. On the UN's request, Iraq added more names. "the reason why the inspectors couldn't do their job in the end was that Saddam wouldn't co-operate." Tony Blair, interview on 4 April 2003 Hans Blix told the Security Council on 7 March 2003 that "the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive'". Past weapons inspections "the UN has tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully." Tony Blair, interview in the Independent on Sunday, 2 March 2003 In 1999, the Security Council set up a panel to assess the UN's achievements in the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. It concluded that: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." "The UN inspectors found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons programme – which he claimed didn't exist – until his lies were revealed by his son-in-law." Tony Blair, interview in the Independent on Sunday, 2 March 2003 This is pure fabrication, used to make the claim that weapons inspectors are ineffective. The UN had already determined that Iraq had had a biological weapons programme months before Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, defected. In the face of the evidence that the UN put to them, the Iraqi regime admitted that they had an offensive biological weapons programme on 1 July 1995. Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected on 7 August 1995. "Only then [after Hussein Kamel's defection] did the inspectors find over 8,000 litres of concentrated anthrax and other biological weapons, and a factory to make more." Tony Blair, interview in the Independent on Sunday, 2 March 2003 UN inspectors have never found anthrax in Iraq. Iraq claimed that it had destroyed all its stocks of anthrax in 1991, and the dispute over anthrax since then has concerned the UN's attempts to verify these claims. The factory at which Iraq had made anthrax, al-Hakam, had been under inspection since 1991, contrary to the Prime Minister's claim. Finding weapons "I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there. … once we have the cooperation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them." Tony Blair, interview on 4 April 2003 Almost all the scientists have been captured, but there has still been no sign of the weapons. "On weapons of mass destruction, we know that the regime has them, we know that as the regime collapses we will be led to them." Tony Blair, press conference with George W. Bush, 8 April 2003 The regime collapsed over three months ago; still no weapons of mass destruction found. "we know where they [the weapons] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." US Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, interview on 30 March 2003 If Mr Rumsfeld knew where the weapons were, why haven't they been found? "We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons" Tony Blair, press conference in Poland on 30 May 2003 In fact, government experts believe that the trailers were used for the production of hydrogen for artillery guidance balloons, a system sold by the UK to Iraq in the 1980s. Iraq and terrorism "there is some intelligence evidence about linkages between members of al-Qaeda and people in Iraq." Tony Blair to the House of Commons Liaison Committee, 21 January 2003 In early February, a classified British intelligence report, written by defence intelligence staff, was passed to the BBC. Far from substantiating the charge that there were "linkages" between al-Qaeda and Iraq, the report states that there were no current links between the two, and claims that Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq". The report was written in mid-January, and had been presented to Tony Blair just prior to his 21 January presentation at the Liaison Committee. "We believe that there have been, and still are, some al-Qaeda operatives in parts of Iraq controlled by Baghdad. It is hard to imagine that they are there without the knowledge and acquiescence of the Iraqi Government." Foreign Office spokesperson, 29 January 2003 No evidence has been presented of al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq: if such persons were in Iraq, why haven't they been found? The decision to go to war "As the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, resolution 1441 gives the legal basis for this [war]" Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 12 March 2003 Resolution 1441 was secured on the British commitment that it did not authorise military action, even if the UK or US believed it was being violated by Iraq. Britain's UN ambassador Jeremy Greenstock told the Security Council on 8 November 2002 that "There is no 'automaticity' in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion". "Resolution 678 which says that the international community should take all necessary means to uphold security and peace. In other words, that Saddam Hussein should disarm". Gordon Brown, interview on 16 March 2003 Resolution 678 was about using force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It was not about the disarmament of Iraq, a topic that was only discussed at the Security Council for the first time some four months after Resolution 678 was passed. "on Monday night, France said it would veto a second Resolution whatever the circumstances." Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 18 March 2003 Mr Blair claimed that diplomatic solutions were impossible because of French obstructionism at the Security Council. In fact, President Chirac said that France would vote against any resolution that authorised force whilst inspections were still working. Chirac said that he "considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to ... disarm Iraq", a position borne out by UN reports on the progress of inspections. Post-war Iraq "the oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN." Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 18 March 2003 Britain co-sponsored a resolution to the Security Council, which was passed in May as Resolution 1483, that gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund. "The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm ... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people." Motion to the House of Commons for war with Iraq, moved by Tony Blair, 18 March 2003 Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, the British co-sponsored Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait. "our aim has not been regime change, our aim has been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction" Tony Blair, press conference, 25 March 2003 This claim is looking increasingly implausible. Weapons inspectors were reporting Iraq's "proactive" cooperation, and were projecting that Iraq could be declared as fully disarmed within three months if that cooperation continued. If Mr Blair was the elimination of prohibited weapons, why terminate the inspection process just when it was most effective? |
can you understand that, spunk? and, so very unlike denying getting a blowjob from an intern, this is exactly where telling the truth should really matter. they would be right to skin him alive for this. you mentioned your faith, think of it like this: the constitution is the bible. the president is the pastor. the nation is the church. which of those 3 are the most or least important reason you have faith in the usa? |
"spunky, why is this something Bush doesn't have to apologize for, but Clinton needs to apologize about his private sex life?" I, for one, never asked for him to apologize. Why should Bush apologize for the statement in the State of the Union adress that simply said that the British Government Has learned that Iraq has ATTEMPTED to buy enriched uranium from Niger? Britain STILL STANDS BY THAT STATEMENT. Where is the lie? The British government said it, bush said that the british gov said it, and the british government still says they said it. And no, there is NO NEED to apologize for running Hussien out. |
Umm, no. The democrats signed on to the idea back in 99. |
I just finished reading a book that really shed some light on 9/11 and Iraq. Not the link between the two, but rather the mistakes and non-actions in the past that brought us to where we are today. |
they were talking about NUCLEAR materials. do you really think that would just slip by unnoticed, without comment? and i fucking guarantee that, if this were clinton or even gore, you would be frothing at the mouth even if you supported getting rid of saddam. and so would i. |
Umm, no. The democrats signed on to the idea back in 99." signed on to the idea of sexing up intelligence? what the fuck you talkin 'bout? plenty of dems supported getting rid of saddam. plenty more lost their backbone as a direct result of the effect the president's speech had on the country. fuck man, it's not about getting rid of saddam's regime, it's about making admittedly unsubstantiated claims and presenting them as evidence that we don't need or care about getting international support for an invasion. in fact, it seems logical thet they knew the claims were false and that given time, blix and co. would certainly find nothing and garnering international support would be impossible anyway. |
|
We were hoping that what we did in Iraq would serve as a deterent not just to Kim Jong but also to the citizens of NK. Plus, the nasty truth is this: 70% of our military is currently deployed at several locations globally. And even without that fact, NK is really just a puppet state of China. The only way to end that war, with full force, is a nuke war. I think the best thing we can do right now is beef up our defense against NK and China. I don't want to see us march in. I currently do not support a war with North Korea. The prospect is far too scary. |
|
|
thats seems bit much. what...50k in S.Korea, 30 Afghanistan, 140k in Iraq. Say....10k elswhere in the world. Are you saying we're, at most, a force of 400k? anyway, besides the point. it doesnt take a genius to realize that war for Iraq, was served up many years ago. Its just been a matter of putting the square peg into a round hole. And if they Dem's get some fucking cojones, they can capitalize on some of the shotty workmanship in getting that square peg into a round hole. the use of the Niger/nuke statement while knowing it was false and inflammatory is just that. Flagrant use of inflammatory and false info, even if its fucking heresay, as a part of your case for war, is a fucking UnConstitutional, and impeachable offense. To think, the republicans wouldnt be 'skinning' a dem president for this is ridiculous on your part spunk. if you really believe that, you're more idiotic than i would have ever thought. but i dont believe that, i think you know that part is true. republicans would be running a dem president out of the office. they railed Gore for his exagerrations. the dems have been stiff-armed by the repubs for far too long. im ready for fisticuffs on the house floor. im ready for fat greasy senators in each others face calling the other a liar. show me some mother fucking action. |
It was one of two pieces of evidence in the Speech used to raise alarm, and one of two pieces of evidence both AT THE VERY LEAST, discredited. how can something go from such damning evidence worthy of the SOTU to just "16 words" ? Here is why its not OK for Bush to avoid responsibility for these words. Meet Jim, Tony, Andrew and Jessica. Jim says to Tony "I think that your girlfriend (Jessica) is fucking Andrew". Tony goes to Andrew and Jessica and without figuring out if its true or not first, goes on Springer and calls them both out to confront them. It turns out that noone has any proof Jessica and Andrew did or didn't have a thing, and Tony looks like an idiot on national TV. Now who's fault is it he looks like an idiot, Jim for telling him what he heard which was technically true, or Tony who went off blabbing without checking to see if its true, or both. ITS BOTH. Take some fucking responsibility for what comes out your own mouth, or admit to the public you are a complete puppet. You can't expect people to take you as a leader if you go around telling people you just read whats in front of you. "And no, there is NO NEED to apologize for running Hussien out. " noone is asking him to. what apologist pundit put you to think its the same thing? theres issue with the way he handled it, and issue with why/whether or not Hussein hasnt really been 'ran out' completely... There is a need to apologize if weapons are not found. There is a need to apologize for not making human rights the main issue if thats the way it was. There is a need to apologize if oil was a reason for war (doesnt even have to be the main one) and they didnt admit it. You havent said anything of the Cheney papers or how the US has taken control of the oil assets, not setting up a UN account like promised to the Iraqi public. Why is that spunk? |
"mistakes and non-actions" I wonder if it mentions that 'Republicans selling arms to hostile nations' thing, or if its more centered on a 'Democrats and European appeasers' thing. |
