The fact remains that everyone knew that when the UN left in 1998 Saddam had WMD. The lying, deception, and charade of games that Saddam played about what happened to them was justification to overthrow him. There are still hundreds of sites to be searched, no ones throwing in the towel.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The fact remains that everyone knew that when the UN left in 1998 Saddam had WMD. The lying, deception, and charade of games that Saddam played about what happened to them was justification to overthrow him. There are still hundreds of sites to be searched, no ones throwing in the towel.
[/QUOTE]
The fact remains that everyone knew that when US attacked in 2003 Iraq didn't have WMD. The lying, deception, and charade of games that Bush played about irrefutable evidences, existence of WMD was justification to attack Iraq. Hundreds of sites have been searched to find two trucks and some suits.
Situation Report for June 3-03
CIA says al Qaeda ready to use nukes](http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030603-122052-2698r.htm)
– Rather than squeezing castor beans in a Paris hotel, where would be the easiest place to procure such weapons?
Ex-Army boss: Pentagon won’t admit reality in Iraq](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-02-white-usat_x.htm)
Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials “are unwilling to come to grips” with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division’s stay there has been extended indefinitely. … “This is not what they were selling (before the war),” …
The Pentagon declined to respond to White’s comments, but a senior official said it was too early to draw conclusions about the size or length of the U.S. troops’ commitment in Iraq. …
– If they have such difficulty dealing with simple truths like force projection numbers, how are we to swallow their pills on WMD? By the way, when would be a good time to make an estimate? after the fact?
Blix report fuels doubts on weapons of mass destruction](http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1054416347356&p=1012571727085)
– It’s Blix.. neutral as usual. Both sides can claim victory if they want.
The bioweapons enigma](The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos)
Intelligence analysts told reporters last week that the configuration of equipment in the trailers would not work efficiently as a biological production plant, is not a design used by anyone else and would not lead anyone to link the trailers intuitively with biological weapons. The intelligence officials took all that as a sign that the Iraqis were ingeniously clever in trying to hide the true nature of what they were doing from international inspectors. But the uncertainties leave open the disquieting possibility that the trailers might not be what the intelligence agencies think they are. It seems increasingly imperative, as this page has argued before, to get an authoritative, unbiased assessment from the United Nations or some other independent body. …
– Just read the rest of it. One thing to remember: It’s easier to put a block of thermite on something than it is to scrub it to the point where the best detection equipment cannot find trace chemicals. If these are what they are said to be, why do they still exist?
A new nuclear danger](The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos)
The new weapons are portrayed as a way to meet emerging threats that the existing nuclear arsenal, aimed at obliterating the Soviet Union in an all-out war, was not designed for. Some would be relatively small, low-yield weapons that could be used against a variety of targets, ranging from mobile targets to underground bunkers. Others would be even larger bunker-buster warheads.
– Because no one else can be trusted with them…
Evidence against Iraq was not a pretense](The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos)
In the meantime, as the crowd that bitterly resents America’s mission to root out the sources of terror whips up its intelligence-hoax hype, remember the wise “mistake” America made in overestimating the fighting spirit of Saddam’s uniformed bully-boys.
When weighing the murky evidence of an aggressive tyranny’s weapons, Bush and Blair were obliged to take no chances. The burden on proof was on Saddam. By his contempt, he invited invasion; by its response, the coalition established the credibility of its resolve. There was no “intelligence hoax.”
– A rebuttal by Safire.. have fun.
wow. Great job there, Spoon. :k: An extremely organized, tightly-collected cluster of sources. Nice job.
Regarding Safire’s comment that,
Upon whom is the burden of proof now? Currently, there are two inquiries being initiated in the UK; both inquiries will assess how the British government presented intelligence information over Iraq’s (alleged) WMD. One inquiry is being conducted by a group of MP’s and the other by the British Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. (Source). For Blair’s sake, i hope his transatlantic “special” relationship with the US holds up because he is going to need as much endorsement as he is able to obtain - should the inquiries present negative findings. Blair’s office already rejected a demand to conduct a “full public inquiry” into this issue - if there’s nothing to hide, then why not come clean and directly present all of the available evidence in a forthright manner? 
Surely if there’s nothing to hide, then they would be willing to do this.
ah.
US Senate opens Iraq weapons probe, BBC, 3 June 2003
The US Congress has ordered an investigation into possible abuse of intelligence information about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The inquiries, launched by both Republican and Democratic politicians, will include public hearings that will be televised live. The CIA is reported to be prepared to co-operate fully.
This is the first serious domestic pressure on the Bush administration to give a detailed explanation of its pre-war claims about weapons of mass destruction. The announcement came the day that Hans Blix - the man the UN appointed to find out whether Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - submitted what is likely to be his last report to the Security Council before leaving the post.
The inquiries are to be conducted by the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.
Old news by now - nothing to be surprised at:
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil, George Wright
The Guardian, 4 June 2003
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair’s position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a “bureaucratic” excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is “swimming” in oil.
…] Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: “Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”
Finally had the time to read Robin Cook’s recent comments, Britain must not let Iran become the next Iraq](The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos). It’s a good read and I recommend it to all that haven’t yet read it. There is this one excerpt, going back to the WMD argument, that I remember well. It was mentioned before the war a few times, but no one heard it. I don’t even think it was carried by any major media.
I think it’s pretty simple really, and it makes quite a lot of sense that the war was mainly about financial opportunity and maintaining a high standard of living in America primarily. All the evil Saddam, WMD blah, this blah that is for the consumption of the average Joe who needs to feel a moral justification for the war.
Bush to Reveal Truth About Iraq Weapons](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
“We’re on the look. We’ll reveal the truth,” Bush said, without specifically promising weapons would be found. “But one thing is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because the Iraqi regime is no more.”
– Yay! We took out the middleman! Now terrorist networks don’t have to bribe Iraqi officials for the goods!
I sure hope Bush makes me look like an idiot…
Another excerpt for y’all to marinate on:
“A more just political system will develop when people have food in their stomachs, and their lights work, and they can turn on a faucet and they can find some clean water — things that Saddam Hussein did not do for them,” Bush said.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
.....
Another excerpt for y'all to marinate on:
"A more just political system will develop when people have food in their stomachs, and their lights work, and they can turn on a faucet and they can find some clean water — things that Saddam Hussein did not do for them," Bush said.
[/QUOTE]
"__ things that Saddam Hussein did not do for them"... Bush.
Did he mean after invasion? To my knowledge, Water and Electricity was a no problem in Iraq.
**
Precisely.
“Bush to reveal truth”, eh? i thought by official terms the invasion had ended several weeks ago. It’s the first week of June now and we are still waiting for the “truth”. If it was Blix and his team taking this long to discover WMD, then the US/UK would have kicked them out of the country faster than anyone could say “Dubya”. The truth my foot. If there was anything to discover, they’d have done it by now. Let’s recall the accurate words of PM Blair prior to the invasion (when he was trying to drum up support within his govt.): Iraq had the capabilities to launch a nuclear attack within 45 minutes - against any country in the world. Where’s the proof, Mr. Blair?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The fact remains that everyone knew that when the UN left in 1998 Saddam had WMD. The lying, deception, and charade of games that Saddam played about what happened to them was justification to overthrow him. There are still hundreds of sites to be searched, no ones throwing in the towel.
[/QUOTE]
tsk tsk UTD,
The fact remains that UN inspectors asked for more time so they can look for all other sites as you mentioned above. You were too quick to discredit them, but want us to wait indefinetly for the american lads to plant errr find wmds. You people really have no shame or conscious.
CIA pressured by Cheney and company
This isn’t surprising at all.
Multiple" visits to the CIA (news - web sites) by Vice President Cheney and a top aide over the past year created an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make assessments of Iraq (news - web sites) data fit the administration’s policy objectives, The Washington Post reported on Thursday
The report cited an unnamed senior CIA official as saying that the visits by Cheney and his chief of staff to question the analysts “sent signals, intended or otherwise that a certain output was desired from here.”
The newspaper reported that former and current intelligence officials said they felt a continual drumbeat not only from Cheney but also from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and, to a lesser extent, CIA Director George Tenet, to find information or write reports in a way that would help the administration make the case that invading Iraq was urgent.
Too quick to discredit UN inspectors?! They had 12 years to play the game with Saddam. But 2 months for the US is 'indefinite'? I'm sorry, but your condescending tone in your posts reek of self-righteousness. Where is your own shame or conscious for not recognizing the attrocities that were being committed in Iraq? It must be so comfortable sitting atop your soap box, wagging your finger with your "tsk tsks", passing judgment on other people's level of shame.
You totally ignore the fact that Saddam lied to inspectors for years about his WMD until he was caught. Then the world is supposed to believe that he destroyed them without him furnishing any proof?
And how typical for someone with your mindset to accuse the US of planting weapons before they are even found. I'm sure you would have said that if they found them on the first day or a year down the road. Why are they waiting to plant them, oh Wise One?
Seminole, here we go with your typical rants of blah blah blah. Its not about the twleve years, its about "clear and present danger", its about the threat to "US security".... Do you remember Scott Ritter? He was an american "UN Inspector" who claimed in 1999 that Saddam/Iraq possesed no checmical or WMDS. Do you knwo that US used most of the inspectors deployed in 90s to spy and provide intelligence to state department? Did you just convinently forget that? Let me remind you once more, the reason US waged this war...WMD. So hurry up and ask your fearless leaders and all the oil cronnies(see Chenney) to find them already. Its luaghable to read criticisim from people like you who could not find iraq on the world map before this war. How do you know that I was not agianst the attrocities that were comitted by Saddam on his own people? on what basis did you make this judgement oh wise one?
Show me the proof that Iraq was a danger to US security... that is right you do not have one. I ask you and Colin Powell one thing " Where is that smoking gun that you were so adamant about"? Now Mr. Seminole, go back to your swamps, take a dip, cool off and come back with some reasons.
That soap box of yours keeps getting taller and taller. Do me a favor, don't talk to me about swamps, world geogrpahy or implications about my intelligence level. If you promise to do that, I promise not lump you with the uneducated Muslim masses of the world that have no free thinking or free will in their Borg-like existence except what they are told by their mullah.
Why don't you quit whining about the US 'invasion' and start some real constructive criticism like how the rest of the Arab world and most of the Muslim world can be liberated from their oppressive governments. All your posts are about the big, bad, evil US. That's why I conclude you are not concerned with the attrocities committed by Iraq or any other Muslim country. There are far fewing tortures, killings, displacements of non-Arabs, imprisonments, etc now in Iraq to make up for the loss of life during the abreviated war. Does that matter? Guess not. Why are the millions of Muslims that suffered under Saddam so unimportant that they don't deserve even one post from you?
Bottom line: Iraq lost a war to US in 1991. They agreed in the terms of surrender to certain things which they did not fulfill. They lied for 12 years. They could not prove that the hundreds of tons of banned weapons (that they finally admitted to having in 1994) were ever destroyed.
Another benefit to this war - the Arab world needed a wake-up call. And they got it.
[QUOTE]
That soap box of yours keeps getting taller and taller. Do me a favor, don't talk to me about swamps, world geogrpahy or implications about my intelligence level. If you promise to do that, I promise not lump you with the uneducated Muslim masses of the world that have no free thinking or free will in their Borg-like existence except what they are told by their mullah
[/QUOTE]
Lets see who is living in a dream world. You cannot lump me with uneduacted Muslim masses, however, you showed your true colors about the suffering of the Muslims by pumping your chest and giving yourself atta boys by betaing up on the weak and those who were no match to the mighty US power.
[QUOTE]
Why don't you quit whining about the US 'invasion' and start some real constructive criticism like how the rest of the Arab world and most of the Muslim world can be liberated from their oppressive governments. All your posts are about the big, bad, evil US. That's why I conclude you are not concerned with the attrocities committed by Iraq or any other Muslim country. There are far fewing tortures, killings, displacements of non-Arabs, imprisonments, etc now in Iraq to make up for the loss of life during the abreviated war. Does that matter? Guess not. Why are the millions of Muslims that suffered under Saddam so unimportant that they don't deserve even one post from you?
[/QUOTE]
Did you even try to do search on my other posts where I numerously stated that Saddam was an evil man and committed dispicable crimes against humanity? Did you bother to read them or simply ignore it like Bush administration did with the UN inspectors reports?
[QUOTE]
Bottom line: Iraq lost a war to US in 1991. They agreed in the terms of surrender to certain things which they did not fulfill. They lied for 12 years. They could not prove that the hundreds of tons of banned weapons (that they finally admitted to having in 1994) were ever destroyed.
[/QUOTE]
Iraq lost a war to US, that much is true. Did Iraq not fulfill the conditions, stated by the UN resolution? that is questionable. Iraq did everything that was required by the UN. Do you know that No fly zones were illegal? I bet you dont care... They did not lie, US lied to the world about WMDS... They have been lying about this issue for a long long time. You side stepped the issue of "Iraq was/is a threat to US security". I ask you again, Can you or any one in Bush administration prove it? Until you prove that, your intelligence and knowledge of geography is suspect.
[QUOTE]
Another benefit to this war - the Arab world needed a wake-up call. And they got it
[/QUOTE]
Be proud, be very proud... beating upon the poor and weak who cannot fight against the US might. Is that the american way... :Life, Liberty and the American way....
President returns home to face growing storm](Latest news & breaking headlines | The Times and The Sunday Times)
**PRESIDENT BUSH returned from his Middle East tour last night to face a growing political storm over the failure to find Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
As Democrats sensed growing White House vulnerability on the issue, allegations that intelligence officials were pressured by Administration hawks to skew Iraqi data surfaced. CIA officials have claimed that Vice-President Dick Cheney made “multiple” visits to the agency in the months before the war.
For the first time, Democratic presidential hopefuls suggested that intelligence had been manipulated.** On Capitol Hill, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s senior Democrat appeared on television to call for televised hearings into the “accuracy” of intelligence used by President Bush to justify the war. “We have found nothing of significance,” said Senator Jay Rockefeller. “We went into the war based on the fact that Saddam’s ties to al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction were posing an imminent threat to our country. We need to know if this was accurate.”
Doubts about the Administration’s claims also intensified after Hans Blix, the outgoing chief UN arms inspector, delivered his final report to the Security Council. Dr Blix said it was “not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for”. Although Iraq had left unanswered many questions, he said, one should not assume such dangerous arms still existed.
Believing that Mr Bush’s credibility on Iraq’s banned weapons could become an issue if America continued to suffer at the hands of al-Qaeda, most of the nine Democratic presidential candidates suggested that intelligence was distorted. Bob Graham, the Florida senator, who has argued for months that Mr Bush has largely ignored the threat posed by al-Qaeda, said the President should be held accountable if intelligence was exaggerated.
“It would raise serious questions about the political leadership that engaged in that manipulation and the misleading of the American public,” he said. John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and a Democratic presidential rival, said: “If the intelligence community had a massive failure here, or if the Administration has distorted the intelligence it was given, those would be legitimate issues.”
John Edwards, the North Carolina senator, said: “Do we have intelligence information that is accurate? Was there a distortion of information?”
According to CIA officials quoted in yesterday’s Washington Post, Mr Cheney made many visits to the CIA over the past year to question intelligence analysts over Iraq’s alleged links to al-Qaeda and illicit weapons programmes. He was often accompanied by Lewis “Scooter” Libby, his chief of staff and a “neo-conservative” supporter of the war. According to some officials, the visits made them feel under pressure to make their assessments fit with the Administration’s policy aims.
The claims come at a time of growing scrutiny of the role played in prewar intelligence by the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit set up by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary. It became a rival to the CIA, which the hawkish elements of the Administration believed had become too averse to risk. Some CIA officals now claim that the OSP exaggerated or manipulated intelligence to justify the war.
The visits by Mr Cheney “sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here,” one senior intelligence official said. Senator Rockefeller said: “What was he doing there?” The CIA director, George Tenet, has ordered an investigation of prewar intelligence to determine its quality and veracity.
Adding to allegations that intelligence was produced under political pressure, Greg Thielmann, a State Department intelligence official covering Iraq until the end of last year, said yesterday that all dissenting views had been omitted from a key CIA report presented to the President in October.
The classified report, a distillation of various agency views about Iraq, concluded that Saddam Hussein had appeared to have resumed work on obtaining nuclear weapons. But, Mr Thielmann said, some State and Energy Department officals dissented from this view. That fact was omitted from the report. “Whole agencies” were in disagreement with the October report, Mr Thielmann said.
The Pentagon called a press conference on Wednesday to deny any politically motivated manipulation of intelligence.
Bush ‘less certain’ on hidden weapons](Latest news & breaking headlines | The Times and The Sunday Times)
PRESIDENT BUSH retreated for the first time yesterday from his previous certainty that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq.
“We’re on the look. We’ll reveal the truth,” he told US troops in Qatar at the final stop of his week-long six- nation journey.
But in a carefully worded speech, he stopped short of promising that chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry would be discovered.
“One thing is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because the Iraqi regime is no more,” he declared.
Mr Bush also softened his previous claims about the discovery of two mobile laboratories in Iraq, saying only that they were “capable” of producing biological agents.
And he said of Saddam Hussein: “This is a man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them.” The White House has previously limited itself to suggesting that Saddam began hiding weapons not “decades” ago, but just before the 1991 Gulf War.
Mr Bush’s rhetoric suggested that he was trying to ride to the rescue of Tony Blair by insisting that weapons of mass destruction would be found. However, his words fell short of such a pledge, and were notably weaker than previous presidential statements.
Asked by Polish TV last week why the US had found no WMDs, Mr Bush said: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”
As the row over the missing weaponry deepened in Britain and America, a US-run radio station in Baghdad appealed for help from Iraqis. “Everybody who has taken part in developing, storing, moving and acquiring weapons of mass destruction should provide coalition forces with information,” the broadcast said.
Mr Bush, speaking on the final leg of his trip to Europe and the Middle East received an ecstatic welcome from several hundred troops in Camp al-Sayliyah, from where General Tommy Franks, commander-in-chief of US forces in the Gulf, conducted the war.
But after being briefed by Paul Bremer, the US civil administrator in Iraq, over breakfast, Mr Bush tacitly conceded there was much to be done before the coalition’s victory was complete.
He sought to blame some of the violence and looting that followed Saddam’s fall on the dictator himself. “Remember, the former leader of Iraq emptied the jail cells of common criminals right before the action took place. And they haven’t changed their habits and their ways. They like to rob and like to loot. We’ll find them.”
He also argued that Iraq would not make strides towards representative democracy until people were properly fed and housed, something else he blamed on Saddam.
But he insisted that the US would stay the course, and used other arguments to justify the war.
“The world is now learning what many of you have seen,” he told the troops. sheltering in an air-conditioned hangar from the baking heat outside. “They’re learning about the mass graves. They’re learning about the torture chambers. Because of you, a great evil has been ended.”
When he set off back to Washington, Air Force One flew over Iraq at 31,000ft, escorted by four fighter jets, with Mr Bush pointing out the landmarks below. The fact that he was unable to visit in person merely highlighted the unfinished nature of the war.
**Bush’s words on weapons of mass destruction
October 7, 2002: “If we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him? It (the Iraqi regime) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
State of the Union, January 28, 2003: “Our intelligence officials 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 could also kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them”
February 28, 2003: “In Iraq a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilised world.”
Address to the nation, March 18, 2003: “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.”
**
lolz. It gets richer by the minute. Saddam Hussein was supposed to have his finger on a trigger that could unleash a torrent of WMD around the world. :rolleyes: Why the current uncertainty - two democratic countries invaded a sovereign country upon a reason that they assured us was valid. If this is not grounds for conducting a FULL, comprehensive, independent inquiry - then what is ?
Here’s the quote of the week - courtesy of Hans Blix:
Blix criticises coalition over Iraq weapons, BBC, 6 June 2003
Blix criticises weapons intelligence, Simon Jeffery, The Guardian, 6 June 2003