[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
In 1998 the UN left Iraq knowing that Saddam still had chemical weapons. Those have not been accounted for since.
[/QUOTE]
Saddam is no longer in power, and hundreds of thousands of American troops are occupying Iraq. Now the burdern of proof is on the occupiers.
All we are seeing are people, organisations and governments tripping over themselves in trying to cover up their lies. It's a satisfying spectacle to watch. :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Saddam is no longer in power, and hundreds of thousands of American troops are occupying Iraq. Now the burdern of proof is on the occupiers.
All we are seeing are people, organisations and governments tripping over themselves in trying to cover up their lies. It's a satisfying spectacle to watch. :)
[/QUOTE]
the american soldiers dont occupy whole iraq....they only have occupied the top cities
Its getting difficult for Bush to cover it, the lies are coming out, American public will learn it a bit too late… Iraq has been invaded, destroyed, occupied, hundreds of American troops slaughtered because someone in White House wanted it to happen.
**Tenet Says Official Wanted Iraq Claim **
Thu Jul 17,10:32 AM ET Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!
By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet told members of Congress a White House official insisted that President Bush (news - web sites)'s State of the Union address include an assertion about Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s nuclear intentions that had not been verified, a Senate Intelligence Committee member said Thursday.
Sen. Dick Durbin, who was present for a 4 1/2-hour appearance by Tenet behind closed doors with Intelligence Committee members Wednesday, said Tenet named the official. But the Illinois Democrat said that person’s identity could not be revealed because of the confidentiality of the proceedings.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan was quick to dispute Durbin’s account. “That characterization is nonsense. It’s not surprising, coming from someone who was in a rather small minority in Congress who did not support the action we took,” McClellan told reporters.
Durbin, appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” said that Tenet “certainly told us who the person was who was insistent on putting this language in which the CIA knew to be incredible, this language about the uranium shipment from Africa.”
“And there was this negotiation between the White House and the CIA about just how far you could go and be close to the truth and unfortunately those sixteen words were included in the most important speech the president delivers in any given year,” Durbin added.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hurtler: *
the american soldiers dont occupy whole iraq....they only have occupied the top cities
[/QUOTE]
Not true, no part of Iraq is controlled by non-US approved person... US is in command/control of Iraq.
**Blair Tells Congress Iraq War Justified **
9 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) told Congress Thursday **he believes “with every fiber of instinct and conviction” that the U.S. and British led war on Iraq (news - web sites) was justified — and that history will forgive them if weapons allegations used as justification were wrong. **
“We promised Iraq democratic government. We will deliver it,” he said.
The prime minister suggested that history will forgive the toppling of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government even if it turns out that Blair and President Bush (news - web sites) were wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
To have hesitated “in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership … that is something that history will not forgive,” Blair said, to loud applause from House members and senators.
Blair entered the House chamber to a standing ovation of lawmakers, senior Bush administration officials and American military brass.
The prime minister wryly thanked his audience for a “warm and generous welcome that’s more than I deserve, and it’s more than I’m used to, quite frankly.”
That was a reference to domestic Birtish politics. Before the war, Blair drew stronger opposition in the House of Commons to military action than Bush did in Congress. And like Bush, he has been hit hard by post-war controversy over questionable intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear aims.
Blair’s visit to Congress, and then to the White House for a meeting and joint news conference with Bush, came amid deepening questions about the intelligence information both leaders used in arguing that war against Iraq was necessary.
The two leaders were the closest of allies on the war, but the relationship has been strained in recent weeks over questions about British claims that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa and the president’s use of such an assertion in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address.
“Can we be sure that terrorists and weapons of mass destruction will join together?” Blair asked. “Let us say one thing. If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhumane carnage and suffering.”
Blair arrived aboard his British Airways jet in early afternoon and went directly to Capitol Hill. It was the first leg of a seven-day tour that will also take him to Asia. He is the first British prime minister to address a joint meeting of Congress since Margaret Thatcher in 1985.
His speech also touched on the war on terrorism, the Middle East peace process, the need to eradicate poverty, disease and famine in Africa and the need to promote free trade.
“This terrorism will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East,” he said.
In what appeared to be mild criticism of the Bush administration, Blair also said it was important to act in coalitions, not going it alone. “Let us start preferring a coalition and acting alone if we have to, not the other way around,” he said.
And, he called on lawmakers not to continue to bear grudges against European countries who opposed the war.
“They are our allies. And yours. So don’t give up on Europe,” he said.
“When we invade Afghanistan (news - web sites) or Iraq, our responsibility does not end with military victory,” Blair said. “Finishing the fighting is not finishing the job. We promised Iraq democratic government. We will deliver it.”
“We promised them the chance to use their oil wells to build prosperity for all their citizens, not a corrupt elite. We will stay with these people so in need of help until the job is done.”
“I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are” right in deciding to go to war without broad international support, Blair said.
Ahead of his visit, White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated the recent administration stance that Bush’s mention of the British Iraq-Africa report should not have been included in the January address.
Still, he added, “the British have been very clear that they stand by that statement.”
Bush said in his State of the Union address, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
The Iraq-Africa dispute has stoked criticism against both the Blair and Bush governments, and Blair’s visit helped to further draw attention.
CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet has thus far taken the blame, suggesting he should have objected when a draft of Bush’s speech was circulated to his agency.
And the White House has continued try to deflect responsibility away from the president — even though a page on the White House Web site shows a picture of Bush working on his speech, with a caption that says “President Bush reviews the State of the Union address line-by-line and word-by-word.”
Asked about that on Thursday, McClellan said there were "a lot of people involved "who had input into the president’s speech. “And the bottom line is the speech was cleared. But we learned some more information later and we should not have included it in there.”
U.S.-British ties have also been strained by the fate of two British terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay.
Blair is under pressure to raise the issue of Moazzam Begg, 35, and Feroz Abbasi, 23 — Britons being held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. More than 200 British lawmakers signed a parliamentary motion protesting any American plans to try them before a military tribunal.
strange isn’t it. blair sayin that history will forgive them if they coudn’t find the WMD. i thought the whole reason they went after saddam was to disarm him and destroy his WMD to remove the threat possed by him. 
Desperate Blair has no shame or principles. He only has one aim in life and that is to suck up to Bush. He wanted to be remembered as someone who changed the course of history. Well in a way he got it. Him and bush have proved that might is right and they can go and loot. plunder and kill anyone they wish and justify it with lies. Afghanistan and Iraq, a case in point.
History will also record a new doctrine, if a terrorist comes and kills 3000 of your innocent civilians, you go and bomb another country and kill 5000+ of their innocent civilians and justify it in the name of war on terrorism. Shame on Blair and Bush.
IS THE WHITE HOUSE PROTECTING TONY BLAIR?](http://tnr.com/etc.mhtml?week=2003-07-13)
Much of the commentary surrounding the shifting White House defense of its uranium-from-Africa whopper–in which it went from essentially conceding that the story was a lie to insisting that the president’s State of the Union formulation was technically correct but didn’t quite meet the standard for a presidential pronouncement-- assumes that the shift came about for tactical reasons. As Slate’s Tim Noah put it in a sharp piece about the controversy yesterday:
But as the flack the White House is taking for the “technically correct” defense begins to outweigh the flack the White House took for conceding it lied–stories in both today’s Washington Post and today’s Wall Street Journal point out that the hairsplitting “technically correct” approach threatens to undermine the president’s reputation for straight talk, which had, up until now, been his chief characterological asset–it seems tough to argue that this was the most tactically inspired move. For one thing, it’s not as though retreating to the “technically correct” defense would make the “alright, you got us” concession go away. The White House had to know that reporters would still write–as they are–that it had already conceded that it lied, and that it was now trying to pretend that it hadn’t conceded that it lied. And, of course, the White House also had to know that its weaselly legalistic defense would invite the inevitable comparisons with the sort of weaselly legalistic defenses then-Governor Bush attacked Bill Clinton and Al Gore for on the campaign trail in 2000. Indeed, the aforementioned Post article points out that:
Since this isn’t exactly a White House known for making tactically uninspired moves, one has to wonder whether there wasn’t another reason–other than pure tactics–that the White House changed its story. And, in fact, it seems entirely plausible that there was. What could that reason have been? How about Tony Blair. Blair’s increasingly embattled government is still standing by its claim that Iraq attempted to by uranium from Africa. Blair was also in town for a visit to Capitol Hill today. By admitting that the Niger-uranium story was all a big lie, the Bush administration effectively undercut its most loyal ally in the world in a true moment of need. More immediately, it set him up for a deeply embarrassing line of questioning from the White House (and British) press corps when he stood alongside Bush behind a podium this afternoon. With all that the Bush administration owes Blair, and with its enormous interest in keeping the Blair government afloat, it doesn’t seem to us like a huge stretch to suggest that the administration changed its uranium story to protect him. In any case, it’s certainly more plausible than the alternative.
And this war lasted for a shorter period than the last…
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Surpasses 1991 War](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
A protester outside a Bush fund-raising event in Dallas on Friday night carried a sign that said:
"A $500 billion deficit is a weapon of mass destruction."
I think the bottem line about all this is really simple. There never were any actual WMD's that is just too obvious except ot the most witless CNN spoon fed idiots.
But would I really wonder about is why in gods name the Americans have'nt just planted WMD's somewhere in the desert and "found" them thus ending the debate.
I honestly expected them to do that a week after this farce of a war ended.
That is the plan you can’t just find WMD the next day and say, see we told you so.. You lay the groundworks first find some WMD here and there and let the reporters / observers discredit that as 
. You gradually build credibility and then bang one day you find what you were looking for. And then you say see we told you so. :k:
[QUOTE]
That is the plan you can't just find WMD the next day and say, see we told you so.. You lay the groundworks first find some WMD here and there and let the reporters / observers discredit that as . You gradually build credibility and then bang one day you find what you were looking for. And then you say see we told you so.
[/QUOTE]
I see what you mean. I agree and would completely expect something of the sort in the next month or so, especially as media pressure builds on Bush and especially Blair. The British public is infinitly more intelligent than Americans (of course that may not be the biggest compliment) and Blair will not be safe for long if WMD's are not found.
I would suspect that once they complete this exercise the Americans will go back to the UN for a mandate on Iraq and with much back room pressure recieve it. At that point Iraq will not be there problem but will instead be on the head of peacekeepers.
There was no new intelligence (ie, the UN knew everything the US knew all along). In Sketchy Data, Trying to Gauge Iraq Threat](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/international/worldspecial/20WEAP.html)
Launch in 45 minutes? CIA never agreed, not that they were ever asked. Didn’t stop Bush or Blair admins. White House Didn’t Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17424-2003Jul19.html?nav=hptop_tb)
War started when? So they really didn’t give a damn if we bought any of those fairy tales? U.S. Air Raids in '02 Prepared for War in Iraq](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/international/worldspecial/20MILI.html)
Aww.. wittle bushy wushy having a temper tantrum? People won’t stop talking about his lies? FBI probing forged papers on Niger uranium](http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm)
WHY WE WENT TO WAR, ACCORDING TO BUSH?
“[W]e gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.”
– President Bush, in a Q and A with reporters after an Oval Office meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, July 14.
“Yesterday [the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission], the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency, and myself got information from the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the [Iraq] region. I have just informed the Council that we will withdraw the UNMOVIC and Atomic Agency inspectors. …”
– U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in a Q and A with reporters, announcing the reluctant withdrawal of U.N. inspectors from Iraq, as necessitated by the imminent U.S. invasion, March 17. The inspections had gone on since November 2002, when Saddam Hussein, in deference to the just-passed (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/resolutions/s-res-1441.pdf) (and to the United States’ quite visible preparations for war) allowed the U.N. inspectors back in. Saddam had kicked U.N. inspectors out–or rather (to be more precise), refused to allow them back in after they’d withdrawn in protest against Iraqi interference–in 1998.
Slate’s Whopper of the Week]
Must be time-consuming to write up all those analyses and summaries, Spoon, but i have to say - it’s extremely helpful to read them. Thank you so much.
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use
in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went
to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business
with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by Forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of
patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically Becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
U.N.: Bioweapons Chief Wrongly Dismissed](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
The former head of the world’s chemical weapons regulatory body was wrongly dismissed last year at the insistence of the U.S. government, according to a ruling at the International Labor Organization in Geneva.
Jose Mauricio Bustani was voted out of office as director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in April 2002, after Washington accused him of mismanagement and rallied other countries in a vote to have him dismissed.
At the time, Bustani’s supporters said Washington wanted him removed not because he performed poorly, but because he supported making Iraq a member of the OPCW, which might have interfered with U.S. plans for war in Iraq. …
– Do read the rest of the article, more fun as always..
This is all so unfortunate and frusterating that at some point I tend to just stop watching the international news, since you get nothing but bad news.
Anybody but the most blind person knows that the Americans and British were lieing through there teeth and worst of all it seems they will get away with it.
Too bad really....
How so true…
Bush Adviser Apologizes Over Iraq Claim](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
My question is, if all these apologies/admissions of error are regarding the use of the vague 16 words concerning African uranium attributed to the British, how can the British still stand by it?
That is, the American admin has more than once now said this claim is bogus. The claim, not the Niger incident. The Brits say their info was more than just the Niger incident. But if the Yanks call it an error to say “Africa”, doesn’t that mean the Brit’s other info has got to be bad too??
So if the Yanks know (publicly) the Brits other info is bad but Blair sticks to it, isn’t he lying more so than Bush?