Bush lied, people died...

[HRoark]

Did you say forced? You are a true riot. Please enlighten everyone on how the U.S. was forced to murder human beings. And please spare the "Iraq is now liberated" bull shit sound bite.

 

Simple, kid, by refusing to act, Iraq put the U.S. in a position to either make good on our threat or back down like spineless pussies.

[Peter_Puget]

Of all the actors in the Iraq situation the only one who could reduce uncertainty was Iraq. That it continuously chose not to do so forced the US position. Despite all the "untruths" of the Bush camp this one fact is inescapable and itself provides a sufficient argument for the Iraq invasion.

 

"I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees!" An oft lauded statement of heroism is now a justification for invasion.

 

ChucK - you're wrong again. SM's behavior clearly shows he would rather live under the yoke of American imperialism than die on his feet. In addition to that error, your quip is not really responsive to my point.

[chucK]

What I read in your statement was that we were forced to invade Iraq because they refused to comply with our demands, and that it didn't matter what our demands were. We were asking them to dig their own grave before we shot them. I find it funny that you feel we were justified to invade because they refused to lay there and enjoy it.

 

If you meant something else, then please elaborate!

[Jim]

But the point is that anyone who looks at the evidence cannot seriously come to the conclusion that there were any trace of WMDs. Here a summary of an issue that actually made it to the mainstream press. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS AND THEY KNEW IT.

 

The Bush administration also made much of Iraq's purchase of high-strength aluminum tubes, which it claimed were used in the enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Outside experts questioned that claim from the very beginning, and the International Atomic Energy Agency reported in early January 2003 that the tubes were for short-range artillery rockets. There were also many dissenters within the U.S. government, especially among experts in the Department of Energy, who doubted that the aluminum tubes were suited for gas centrifuges needed for uranium enrichment.

 

Perhaps the biggest revelation contradicting the official administration line on Iraq WMDs was a story in the March 3 issue of Newsweek (released February 24) about Iraqi General Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, who had headed Iraq's weapons program. Kamel had defected from Iraq in 1995 and was killed upon his return in 1996. On many occasions, Bush administration figures had cited Kamel's testimony to UN weapon inspectors in an attempt to show that Iraq was still hiding weapons of mass destruction, even though Kamel had left Iraq in 1995.

 

The reporter who wrote the Newsweek story, John Barry, had recently obtained a transcript of Kamel's 1995 testimony to the UN weapon inspectors, in which Kamel revealed that "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them." You read that right: destroyed them. Barry wrote that Kamel's testimony "raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist." Barry noted that "Kamel was Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs." The writer added that a military aide who defected with Kamel "backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks." And Barry revealed that Kamel had also given his story to the CIA and British intelligence in 1995 When the Newsweek article appeared, the CIA denounced it as false, but an original transcript of Kamel's testimony to the UN inspectors was produced that confirmed the story.

[Peter_Puget]

Chuck - My post explicitly mentioned uncertainty, since your reply seems not to consider that at all I can only conclude it is not serious. Your reply is also not correct in that Iraq was not incompliance with UN demands. It was this noncompliance which was the issue.

 

PP

[HRoark]

What I read in your statement was that we were forced to invade Iraq because they refused to comply with our demands, and that it didn't matter what our demands were. We were asking them to dig their own grave before we shot them. I find it funny that you feel we were justified to invade because they refused to lay there and enjoy it.

 

If you meant something else, then please elaborate!

 

No, they did not comply and WE MADE A CHOICE to invade. Granted, I believe this was the right choice, as any other would have made us appear weak and open to further injury and/or attack.

[Rodchester]

But Jim, Kamel's story was one of hundreds of defectors. Most of them stated the opposite. The Intel community (it appears) got it wrong. (this doesn't mean that the Bushies didn't twist it as well). Anecdotal information like Kamel's story is interesting, but it in no way is a basis to ignore the rest of the intel. Sure it is intel and it was likely considered.

 

It now appears that they should have listened more closely to Kamel and a few others that made statements along the lines of the weapons being destroyed. Keep inmind, desroying these things is no simple feat. At least that is true of Chemical weapons and some Bio (i.e. Anthrax). They would leave a signiture if simply dumped in the desert.

 

But what I don't get, is why didn't Saddam just tell and show the UN weapons inspectors that they had been destroyed? (assuming that they were actually destroyed). This is puzzling to me.

 

Maybe Saddam was bluffing the UN and others into thinking that he still had the weapons and that he would use them if invaded? If so, he convinced a lot of people and intel agencies around the world.

[Jim]

But Jim, Kamel's story was one of hundreds of defectors. Most of them stated the opposite. The Intel community (it appears) got it wrong. (this doesn't mean that the Bushies didn't twist it as well).

 

Yes they did lie. They said Kamel stated that there wer WMDs in Iraq. As the newsweek article points out he said the exact opposite. The Bushies had the transcripts. That is a lie and distortion of the fact. Next you're going to say they made a misktake in reading comprehension. Pitiful.

[scrambler]

What I read in your statement was that we were forced to invade Iraq because they refused to comply with our demands, and that it didn't matter what our demands were. We were asking them to dig their own grave before we shot them. I find it funny that you feel we were justified to invade because they refused to lay there and enjoy it.

 

If you meant something else, then please elaborate!

 

No, they did not comply and WE MADE A CHOICE to invade. Granted, I believe this was the right choice, as any other would have made us appear weak and open to further injury and/or attack.

 

I'm curious and as I don't know the entire picture, did we also invade their airspace, testing them? This stratagem is not unknown and I believe it's practiced with regards to North Korea, perhaps Cuba, and was to some extent with the former USSR.

[erf]

Rodchester:

 

You have at least indirectly answered one of my questions, you are playing stupid. I won't bother to rebutt your backpedaling and playing word games. Fortunately, anyone so enclined can backtrack, check on your assertions and context. Then they should be able to assess the semantics games and funny emoticons for what they are worth. Of course, why anyone should feel compelled to do so is not obvious, I personally would not bother.

 

Since you have not yet answered (repeatedly) my other question, I'll assume you think it sensible to be supporting dictators/repressive regimes in some part of the world (Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Columbia, Pakistan, etc ..) and at the same time take it at face value when Bush declares that we went to Iraq to foster democracy (note that we haven't even yet discussed whether our present actions in Iraq further democracy). It is apparently okay with you to comment on the statements coming from the Bush administration about "errors committed in the past" without checking if they are consistent with the actual policies they are promoting. This sounds pretty familiar, I'll bet you call yourself middle of the road.

 

I also suspect, you'll now claim that you never said anything that I said you said. That law education of yours, comes in handy, doesn't it?

[scrambler]

Maybe Saddam was bluffing the UN and others into thinking that he still had the weapons and that he would use them if invaded? If so, he convinced a lot of people and intel agencies around the world.

 

Look, didn't Saddam know that the Bush family are better poker players than him?

[Rodchester]

I'm not saying they didn't get Kamel's story, only that when you intrepret intel you have to look at everything that you have. One guy's story against many others and the historical trend, com. intel, Sat. intel, and other things with the idea you err on the side of caution, and I don't see how the intel agencies coming down on the side of Saddam's own stated postion that he had WMD is pitiful.

 

Intel doesn't work that way...

 

With the gift of hindsight we can critize the agencies and learn from the mistakes made.

 

[Jim]

And I'm saying that any of the stuff the Bush admin put up can easily be shown to be false by someone with half a brain. It's difficult to respond to generalities. I've given several examples of lies - show me a piece of evidence that they used of justification that was true - or at least thought of as true by the intellegince community. But you can't because there is none. It's not gray. Everytime I point out a direct lie you start talking about the gray zone. That's the current spin and it doesn't hold water.

[erf]

Right Jim. Especially since weapons inspectors surveyed every single site pointed at by said intel prior to the war and they did not find anything. It's called faith-based intelligence.

 

I am sure you realize the spin is not directed at those who use half of their brain. As far as they are concerned, if you actually use half your brain you are not part of their constituency so it does need to hold any water. Just read the headlines, and you'll feel a lot better.

[Rodchester]

Jim:

 

Are you saying there were no other defectors besides Kamel? And that no other defectors and inside sources disagreed with Kamel?

 

In order for the WHOLE thing to be a lie, nearly every intelligence agency (France, Germany, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Britain, etc.) were going along with the lie? There is nothing gray about their assessments. They ultimately all agreed that he had stockpiles of Chemical weapons. Are you saying they ALL lied? Even the UN inspectors agreed that they had not accounted for the weapons and it was GENERALLY agreed that he was hiding them somewhere.

 

Were you in the book depository in 1963 in Dallas? Kidding. Just trying to clarify what you’re saying.

[erf]

In order for the WHOLE thing to be a lie, nearly every intelligence agency (France, Germany, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Britain, etc.) were going along with the lie? There is nothing gray about their assessments.

 

Have you seen their assessments? How much do intel agencies feed info to one another?

[Jim]

 

 

Ok lets settle for a moment on this specific issue. The Bush administration said that Kamel's testimony indicated that there Saddam had a wealth of WMDs and used this as part of the overall war justification. Newsweek and the UN testimony transcrips show that Kamel said the EXACT OPPOSITE, that Iraq had no weapons. He never said that there were WMDs in Iraq after the Gulf War.

 

So why did the Administration say Kamel said there were WMDs. The administration had the transcripts. They lied because they wanted to scare the public.

[Rodchester]

Oh..got ya. I misunderstood what you were saying. My comments have more to do with the Intel community and thier assessments and less with the administration's.

[Rodchester]

"Have you seen their assessments? How much do intel agencies feed info to one another?"

 

Only open source material, obviously. However, the Chem weapons position is public information from many agencies relased through thier governments and at times directly.

 

As far as intel agencies working together and feeding each other...it REALLY varies. Sometimes they appear to be tied at the hip but are just watching each other with very little cooperation. Sometimes they share a good bit. More often than not they share a little and hide a lot.

[erf]

"FRENCH-GERMAN-RUSSIAN MEMORANDUM ON CONTINUING INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ

 

FRANCE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

 

February 24, 2003

 

 

 

1 - Full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions remains the imperative objective of the international community. Our priority should be to achieve this peacefully through the inspection regime. The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled:

 

- While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field;"

 

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/Index_France.htm

[Rodchester]

"FRANCE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS"

 

Not the intel community

[Jim]

And my overall point is that this thread runs through all of the justifications for the war. I would have disgreed with the decision, but had more respect for the administration if they had stated their true reasons for going to war. That Saddam is a despot, that we need to protect the oil resources, and that we intend to make this an example of democracy in action in the middle east.

 

But instead they tried to scare the public and justifiy it with what they knew was false and purposefully twisted information. It was not the intel or lack thereof. Later gotta get some work done.

[Rodchester]

Take it easy Jim.

[erf]

"FRANCE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS"

 

Not the intel community

 

One of those, hey Rodchester? So, are you saying that the French foreign ministry would lie about what their intel services tell them but we would never do so? Too funny.

 

Until you provide evidence supporting your claim that "there is nothing gray about the assessments" of intel services all over the world, it's not worth the paper ...

[erf]

"Your example of the yellow cake is one that it appears to have been twisted. Keep in mind though, the Italians came to the Bushies after the US envoy arrived at his conclusions and challenged the earlier conclusions."

 

 

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_10_26.html

"Let’s put another piece of the uranium forgeries puzzle down on the table.

 

This time the issue is timing.

 

First, we already know that in the first couple days of October 2002 Italian journalist Elisabetta Burba got a call from an Italian businessman and security consultant, a source for an earlier story, telling her that he had some documents she’d be interested in seeing.

 

She met with the source in person on October 7th in a bar in Rome. But on seeing the documents Burba had questions from the start. The next day she brought the documents and her concerns to a meeting with her editors at Panorama. Burba then proposed a fact-finding trip to Niger to investigate the document's authenticity.

 

But the Editor-in-Chief of Burba’s magazine insisted she take the documents to the American Embassy in Rome to have them verified. That man is Carlo Rossella, a man who is, in Sy Hersh’s words, “known for his ties to the Berlusconi government.” (Keep in mind that the magazine itself is owned by Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi and that he is a staunch supporter of President Bush’s Iraq policy.)

 

Rossella described his suggestion thusly to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera ...

 

When Burba showed me the documents she had received from a source of hers, she also explained to me that she had many doubts as to their authenticity. I told her to run all the checks she deemed necessary, and I also suggested the possibility of getting an evaluation directly from the United States ... I knew perfectly well that that material could prove an extraordinary scoop, and therefore I personally called the press office and informed them about what was happening. I suggested delivering them a copy of the dossier in order to have their assessment.

When asked why he didn't have the documents run by private or government experts in Italy he said ...

 

Because I believed that the only ones able to give us a correct evaluation were the Americans, who for years have been dealing with Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. My objective was exclusively that of not publishing a "poisoned chalice," rather than of informing the United States.

 

The next day, October 9th, in a meeting arranged by Rosella, Burba handed over copies of the dossier to the American Embassy in Rome. They were then forwarded to Washington. According to several accounts, they were immediately recognized as fakes by analysts at the CIA and the State Department. But that didn't stop their life in the US national security bureaucracy.

 

Now, those documents turn out to have been amazingly well-timed. Why? Let’s look at what else was happening while these events were unfolding in Rome.

 

Through the first weeks of September senior members of the Bush administration began a major press offensive alleging that Saddam Hussein had a robust nuclear weapons program. This was done in close coordination with British PM Tony Blair. On September 24th Blair published his Iraq dossier which said, among other things, that “there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

 

The British dossier was intended to convince skeptics in the UK but also to provide grist for the debate in the United States. The dossier, in fact, was the predicate for a major speech President Bush intended to give on October 7th in Cincinnati, one calling attention to the Niger uranium story.

 

But there were problems. And they cropped up rapidly.

 

As early as September 28th the BBC had begun investigating leaks from the British national security establishment claiming that the dossier was based on hyped intelligence.

 

There were problems too from the IAEA. Immediately after Blair’s presentation in the House of Commons the IAEA insisted that the claims about nuclear activities were unsubstantiated and demanded whatever evidence the US or the UK might have to back them up. Nothing was forthcoming.

 

Most important in the US, there were problems from the CIA. Behind the scenes in the US, a battle royale was shaping up over whether the president should be allowed to repeat the uranium from Africa claims in his Cincinnati speech.

 

On October 1st, US intelligence agencies released a top-secret NIE to the White House and Congress. The NIE mentions the Niger reports as well as claims about attempts to purchase uranium in Somalia and Congo. The only doubts were raised in a footnote noting the State Department’s skepticism.

 

But despite the NIE, the CIA clearly had grave concerns about the accuracy of the Niger story. And pretty much from the moment Blair released the dossier there was a wrestling match between the White House and the CIA over whether the president should publicly refer to the Niger uranium story in his speech.

 

The struggle culminated in the two days (October 5th & 6th) before the president traveled to Ohio when the CIA sent two separate top-secret memos to the president’s staff insisting that the references be removed from the speech. Fearing that that hadn’t done the trick, CIA Director George Tenet personally telephoned Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley insisting that the references to uranium sales based on the British dossier be removed from the speech, which they were.

 

Now, I know there are a lot of dates and personages in the mix here and we’ll be adding some more in subsequent posts. But consider the progression of events…

 

The US and UK start a major roll-out on the nuclear claims. But the response is generally disappointing. There’s major push-back from the IAEA and, secretly in the US, from the CIA.

 

It was precisely at this moment (in the last days of September and the first of October) that the advocates of the Niger story were most in need of some new evidence. And it was precisely at this moment when the new evidence --- at first seemingly incontrovertible --- popped up in Rome.

 

And the day after the reporter gets the docs the Editor-in-Chief of her magazine instructs her to take them to the American Embassy.

 

And remember too that it wasn’t publicly known at the time that Niger was the country in question."