Majority in US believes Bush 'stretched truth' about Iraq: poll

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

Here's an article from yesterday's NYT regarding the 'African uranium':

Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, July 7 ? The White House acknowledged for the first time today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.

The White House statement appeared to undercut one of the key pieces of evidence that President Bush and his aides had cited to back their claims made prior to launching an attack against Iraq in March that Mr. Hussein was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. Those claims added urgency to the White House case that military action to depose Mr. Hussein needed to be taken quickly, and could not await further inspections of the country or additional resolutions at the United Nations.

The rest of the story can be found at the site of the New York Times

The article also states that even before he made his State Of The Union intelligence services casted the uranium information in doubt. This seems to become a tricky situation...

C ya!

Marty

 

[Dreadsox]

Hello,

Here's an article from yesterday's NYT regarding the 'African uranium':



The article also states that even before he made his State Of The Union intelligence services casted the uranium information in doubt. This seems to become a tricky situation...

C ya!

Marty

Someone else will hang for this so we have the appearance of truth.

Peace

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I wonder who is going to be the fall guy. The CIA?

 

[Popmartijn]

Naah, I think it'll be a low-level White House/Pentagon employee who gets blamed for inserting that comment without seeking approval. You don't want to piss of any agencies, you might need them next time...

C ya!

Marty

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]ASHINGTON, July 8 ? The State Department told a Congressional committee today that seven days after President Bush gave his State of the Union address, in which he charged that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium in Africa, American diplomats warned the International Atomic Energy Agency that the United States could not confirm the reports.[/Q]

Let me get this straight. They put it in the speech. There was evidence from almost a year before that their information was bogus. Bush gives the speech, and then they tell the IAEA that they cannot confirm it within a week of the speech?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/09/international/worldspecial/09INTE.html?ex=1058328000&en=b567b16f7e285d1c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

 

[Scarletwine]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030709_1801.html

"Rumsfeld, in a terse exchange with Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said he learned only "within recent days" that the Africa claims were based on faulty evidence. U.N. officials determined the documents were forgeries before the war."

What a crock of bullshit.
My baby Rummy doesn't seem so cocky now does he. He may just end up being the fall guy if the fire gets too hot.


"Still, some have claimed the evidence was manipulated or misrepresented to build a case for war.

Greg Thielmann, an official with the State Department's intelligence bureau who retired last year, told an Arms Control Association forum on Wednesday that when it came to Iraq, the administration took an approach that seemed to say, "We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers."

 

[STING2]

"What a crock of bullshit.
My baby Rummy doesn't seem so cocky now does he. He may just end up being the fall guy if the fire gets too hot."

If Bush's opponents want to make this a 2004 campaign issue, Rummy will get to enjoy another 4 years as secretary of defense.

 

[Klaus]

STING2:

Mr. Rumsfeld mentioned today that they didn't have new evidences for invading Iraq, they just interpreted it in a new way..
...for me that means that every "new evidences" they talked about were faked

Klaus

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Sting, why do you keep bringing this back to a "campaign issue". Isn't it enough that it's a huge credibility issue for the current administration? And one that the American people OUGHT to be concerned about? Or is having false information passed onto the public to convince them to go to war just a-ok in your book?

 

[speedracer]

I remember seeing somewhere that Bush was told that the uranium story was very sketchy, and he pounded his fist on the table and said if the CIA couldn't prove it wasn't true, they better find somebody who can, because he knew it was true and he knew he would be proven right after the fact. I don't know if it appeared on this forum though.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_2529.shtml

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

I remember seeing somewhere that Bush was told that the uranium story was very sketchy, and he pounded his fist on the table and said if the CIA couldn't prove it wasn't true, they better find somebody who can, because he knew it was true and he knew he would be proven right after the fact. I don't know if it appeared on this forum though.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_2529.shtml

Sounds like something Bush would do. The CIA have their hands
full now. They have to "find" WMD and now uranium and
Bin Laden & Saddam too.
Hopefully, when Bush loses the next election, the CIA will be
revamped and new competent people will be put in their place.

 

[Dreadsox]

Someone else will hang for this so we have the appearance of truth.

Peace

I believe that Mr. Tennant will be resigning as Director of the CIA. He will take the fall on this in my opinion.

Peace

 

[kobayashi]

I remember seeing somewhere that Bush was told that the uranium story was very sketchy, and he pounded his fist on the table and said if the CIA couldn't prove it wasn't true, they better find somebody who can, because he knew it was true and he knew he would be proven right after the fact. I don't know if it appeared on this forum though.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_2529.shtml

if terrance j wilkinson said so then it must be true.

 

[STING2]

sulawesigirl4,


"Sting, why do you keep bringing this back to a "campaign issue". Isn't it enough that it's a huge credibility issue for the current administration? And one that the American people OUGHT to be concerned about? Or is having false information passed onto the public to convince them to go to war just a-ok in your book?"

A certain percentage of all intelligence that the USA has today is partly inaccurate. That is a simple fact of intelligence. There is no such thing as "perfect intelligence".

There is no credibility issue in regards to intelligence that has turned out to be false. This happens every day at the CIA and other intelligence agencies. It happens in business and in peoples personal lives.

I keep on bringing up the campaign issue because I'd love the democrats to pursue it, because there is NOTHING there.

But let me ask you and others who are so interested in this issue. Do you understand that the vast Majority of the evidence Bush used to state the reasons for war with Iraq come from the UN inspectors reports from 1998, and Saddam's failure to account for that WMD in 2002?

Why do you and others sweep this fact under the rug? The only reason I can see is for political reasons. Opponents of Bush typically want to find some form of "dirt" to use against the president politically.

Its a fact that Saddam had 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, and hundreds of tons of Mustard Gas in 1998. Why are the people who harp on Bush's alleged lying, so unconcerned about this WMD Saddam told inspectors in 2002 that he had destroyed yet showed not evidence of such destruction?

There has always been and will always be intelligence, used by public officials that later turns out to be inaccurate. What should not automatically follow is a potential plot for the next Oliver Stone movie.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

sting, of course there is no such thing as "perfect" intelligence. I think we all know and accept that. However, politicizing intelligence to get to an already decided outcome is a dangerous thing and I would hope that it concerns everyone, whether they vote Republican or Democrat.

 

[Dreadsox]

The reason the credibility issue is important is as follows:

#1) We were told he was within a year of a nuclear bomb
#2) The evidence used to make this case had been discredited almost 12 months earlier.
#3) We went to war under the premise that we were immediate danger from said weapon.
#4 The NBC weapons that were allegedly present in 1988 was not enough of a reason to go to war when we did. It was the IMMEDIATE threat that this administration was selling.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"The reason the credibility issue is important is as follows:"

"#1) We were told he was within a year of a nuclear bomb"
"#2) The evidence used to make this case had been discredited almost 12 months earlier."
"#3) We went to war under the premise that we were immediate danger from said weapon."
"#4 The NBC weapons that were allegedly present in 1988 was not enough of a reason to go to war when we did. It was the IMMEDIATE threat that this administration was selling"

1. US intelligence was not the only country that speculated that this was the case. German intelligence also had similar estimates. The IAEA certified Iraq as clean back in 1988 of any Nuclear program. In May of 1991 following the Gulf War, UN inspectors found that Iraq was less than a year away from having a nuclear weapon. We were lucky that time, there is no way we could afford to be wrong a second time though!

2. A certain piece of evidence was discredited, not the entire body of evidence that US and other countries have had on Iraq's past Nuclear programs. They did it before they could do it again. No inspectors at all in the country for four years, but were supposed to take Saddam at his word and not worry about it.

3. Totally false. One reason we went to war was to prevent the full development of such a weapon. But essentially, we went to war because of Iraq's failure to disarm which they were required to do in 1991.

4. False. The WMD that Iraq did have in 1998 was a violation of the UN ceacefire Agreement and multiple UN resolutions. Iraq was required to give up these weapons in 1991, because they were viewed as an Immediate danger to the international community. 75% of the Worlds energy comes from the middle east and the Iraq's possession of WMD in conjuction with their military could be used by Iraq to enable them to disrupt the worlds supply of energy.

I find it rather naive, the belief that Saddam had no nuclear ambitions and for four years without UN inspectors was a model Boy Scout. Its also, in my opinion, naive to believe that Saddam would independently disarm himself.

 

[Klaus]

1. You are right Germans were convinced in the late 80ies that Iraq could build an atomic bomb, that's why they supportet to the Gulf war of 1991 (Desert Storm)
For this war i'd like to quote our foreign minister in the UN
"Excuse me sir, i'm not convinced"

2.Your Government said that they didn't have new evidences allready -> every new evidence they mentioned before the war were either old or faked.

3. the US went to war because of the immediate danger, that's why they had no time to wait until Mr. Blix could finish his job (why? maybe because some politicans were afraid that they had even less reasons for the invasion after the UN-Inspectors finished their job?)

4. It was a violation, right - but the question is if it was worth the war, if the US citizens would have agreed to the war just because he didn't fullfill old resolutions 100%

Because of the military presence Saddam was more and more willing to fulfill them (he destroyed his rockets a few days before the war) But i guess The hawks inside the government would have seen it as face loss if they couldn't drop some bombs

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]1. US intelligence was not the only country that speculated that this was the case. German intelligence also had similar estimates. The IAEA certified Iraq as clean back in 1988 of any Nuclear program. In May of 1991 following the Gulf War, UN inspectors found that Iraq was less than a year away from having a nuclear weapon. We were lucky that time, there is no way we could afford to be wrong a second time though![/Q]

That is why Colin Powell eliminated the information about the uranium a week after the President included it. It was FALSE information. Powell spoke yesterday about how careful he was to make certain that HE presented truthful information to the UN. It is complete horseshit that the President was allowed to say what he said.

[Q]2. A certain piece of evidence was discredited, not the entire body of evidence that US and other countries have had on Iraq's past Nuclear programs. They did it before they could do it again. No inspectors at all in the country for four years, but were supposed to take Saddam at his word and not worry about it.[/Q]

Are we now going to invade every country on the planet that we think may have the desire to aquire a Nuke? I am sorry, but, the President of the United States was allowed to Present information that our intelligence agencies new was BOGUS. It was seven days later that they made certain Powell did not bring it up. The ambassador said that in FEB 2002 they knew the information was false.

[Q]
3. Totally false. One reason we went to war was to prevent the full development of such a weapon. But essentially, we went to war because of Iraq's failure to disarm which they were required to do in 1991.[/Q]
The reason we NEEDED to act quickly was the "Clear and Present Danger" That is why the United States went around the wished of the UN and the Security Council. THere is NO evidence that Hanz Blix was not accomplishing what he set out to do. THere is no evidence that the political and military pressure was not forcing Saddam to comply. The Case to the AMerican people was that we were in immediate danger. That IRAQ was a sponsor of Terrorism with possible links to AL-Qaeda and if they ever got a Nuke, watch out.

[Q]
4. False. The WMD that Iraq did have in 1998 was a violation of the UN ceacefire Agreement and multiple UN resolutions. Iraq was required to give up these weapons in 1991, because they were viewed as an Immediate danger to the international community. 75% of the Worlds energy comes from the middle east and the Iraq's possession of WMD in conjuction with their military could be used by Iraq to enable them to disrupt the worlds supply of energy.[/Q]

Do I really need to start posting the quotes from the speeches to make my case? The Vicepresidents quotes, the Presidents quotes?

Your premise is that Iraq was going to use them on their neighbors while the US Military was there building up in Kuwait last fall? Iraq was going to use them when the inpections were going on that showed good faith in the process? Do I have to once again point out that in ALL CEASE FIRES brokered by the UN only the SECURITY COUNCIL can decide if action should be taken?

What benefit would Iraq have gotten out of using the weapons? The whole world against them again? You say we are NAIVE? Give me a break. Saddam was going to use them and that would what, force the UN to do something?

 

[Dreadsox]

Let's start here:

We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

?The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his ?nuclear mujahideen? -- his nuclear holy warriors? Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.? George W. BushOctober 2002


The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003


Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Meet The Press
3/16/2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then ? it remains a surprise to me now ? that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
May 30, 2003

This wasn?t material I was making up, it came from the intelligence community Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Press Briefing
6/2/2003


?I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons? I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. That's fact number one.?
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - June 2003

"It doesn't appear there are any more targets at this time," said Lt. Keith Harrington whose team has been cut by more than 30 percent. "We're hanging around with no missions in the foreseeable future." Keith Harrington, Lt. Colonel
Iraq
6/9/2003

Those documents were only one piece of evidence in a larger body of evidence suggesting that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Africa ... The issue of Iraq's pursuit of uranium in Africa is supported by multiple sources of intelligence. The other sources of evidence did and do support the president's statement. Sean McCormack, National Security Council Spokesman
Statement to press
6/13/2003

A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003

My personal view is that their intelligence has been, I'm sure, imperfect, but good.In other words, I think the intelligence was correct in general, and that you always will find out precisely what it was once you get on the ground and have a chance to talk to people and explore it, and I think that will happen. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
6/18/2003

You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat Joseph C. Wilson IV, Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
7/9/2003

 

[STING2]

"That is why Colin Powell eliminated the information about the uranium a week after the President included it. It was FALSE information. Powell spoke yesterday about how careful he was to make certain that HE presented truthful information to the UN. It is complete horseshit that the President was allowed to say what he said."

You also forgot to mention that yesterday Powell said that NO ONE in the administration has tried to mis-lead the American people into attacking Iraq with false information.

So far the conspiracy charges against the president are not worth an ounce of "horseshit".


"Are we now going to invade every country on the planet that we think may have the desire to aquire a Nuke?"

Thats the typical generalization that many critics of US Iraq policy make. US policy against Iraq, the resolutions Saddam was forced to comply with after the Gulf War and the ceacefire agreement, came about primarily because of SADDAMS BEHAVIOR + WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! There is not another Leader on the planet that has invaded and attacked unprovoked, 4 independent countries in the space of the last 20 years. No other Leader has used Weapons Of Mass Destruction as many times as Saddam has. In addition, 75% of the worlds energy supply is in close proximity to where SADDAM and the results of his behavior are.

"I am sorry, but, the President of the United States was allowed to Present information that our intelligence agencies new was BOGUS."

I am sorry to tell you this but thats not the first time that has happened nor will it be the last time. In addition the "BOGUS" information was small piece of the puzzle. , the majority of the administrations claim rested on the UN inspectors last report in 1998.

"The reason we NEEDED to act quickly was the "Clear and Present Danger" That is why the United States went around the wished of the UN and the Security Council."

Saddam's possession of WMD considering his past behavior was defined as a "Clear and Present Danger" in 1991 which is why he was forced to give up his WMD in Resolution 687. The USA and other member states have had the right to respond to Iraqi violations with the all means necessary in order to bring compliance, ever since resolution 678 was passed back in 1990! The UN and the Security Council approved the use of force again in resolution 1441 and their recognition of the coalition forces as the "Authority" in 1483 reaffirms that was indeed the case.

"THere is NO evidence that Hanz Blix was not accomplishing what he set out to do."

Hanz Blix's job is to verify what Saddam claims. The UN inspections process can only work when the one being inspected is cooperative. Saddam did not cooperate when the inspectors came back in 2002. Saddam claimed that between 1998 and 2002, that they destroyed the WMD that was on the list from 1998. Saddam never showed any evidence of the destruction of which there would be plenty of if what he said was in fact so.

Hanz Blix can or any UN inspector for that matter in a "police state" can only do what the dictator is willing to let them do. The process cannot fully work if Saddam does not cooperate. Only military force can disarm a dictator who does not want to be disarmed.

"THere is no evidence that the political and military pressure was not forcing Saddam to comply"

Other than allow inspectors back into the country, name one significant thing that the political and military pressure against Saddam forced him to do in the 6 months prior to the war? How was the international community any closer to insuring that Saddam was disarmed with Blix and his unarmed men of about a 100 running around a country the size of Texas looking for things that Saddam had four years to hide or conceal?

"The Case to the AMerican people was that we were in immediate danger."

Any country with Saddams level of behavior and WMD capabilities in close proximity to 75% of the worlds energy supplies, is an immediate danger. Luckily, no other leader of another country has Saddam's level of international behavior + WMD capabilities and is in close proximity to a majority of the planets energy supplies.

"That IRAQ was a sponsor of Terrorism with possible links to AL-Qaeda and if they ever got a Nuke, watch out."

There were many indications that this could in fact be the case. Why cover up such information. After 9/11, it would irresponsible for any President not to bring up such intelligence, even if some of it later turns out not to be true, which happens every day in the intelligence community.

No one could no for sure how for along Saddam was with Nuclear capability. What we do know is what the effects of and new capabilities Saddam would have if he ever got such a weapon. Ever wonder what the effects of a nuclear detonation on Oil fields in Saudi Arabia would be? US soldiers have the means to defend themselves from Bio and Chem weapons, but they have almost no defense against the effects of nuclear weapons. How many games with Saddam do you wanna play? How much do you want to risk the security of the global economy?

Its very simple, Saddam could have cooperated with the international community and given up all his WMD. His refusal to cooperate meant that the only way we could insure that Saddam was disarmed was to remove him.

"Do I really need to start posting the quotes from the speeches to make my case? The Vicepresidents quotes, the Presidents quotes?"

The quotes are fine, but it does not change the fact that most of the administrations case is still based on the information from 1998.

"Your premise is that Iraq was going to use them on their neighbors while the US Military was there building up in Kuwait last fall?"

When dealing with someone as unpredictable as Saddam, that has to always be a possibility. Most intelligence analyst do not predict Saddam would attack Iran. Most did not predict that he would attack Kuwait either. The reason Saddam was forced to give his WMD at the end of the Gulf War was because based on his prior behavior, it was impossible to accurately predict when he would use such WMD in the future. While I honestly do not believe he would do that, you cannot base National Security Policy on that assumption because of his past bahavior. If there is a chance he has the capability and is unwilling to give it up, you have to assume he could use it at any time regardless of what your logic tells you, because he can. This is not someone who's decision making process is similar to yours as prior events demonstrate.

In addition, the military always anticipated that a "first Strike" by Saddam was a likely option.

"Iraq was going to use them when the inpections were going on that showed good faith in the process?"

The only good faith Saddam could of shown was turning over the WMD or showing the remains of its destruction. Its as simple as that. Playing prior games of "hide and seek" is meaningless.

"Do I have to once again point out that in ALL CEASE FIRES brokered by the UN only the SECURITY COUNCIL can decide if action should be taken?"

Do I have to point out again that the coalition already had the legal right to act based on multiple resolutions passed by the security council?



"What benefit would Iraq have gotten out of using the weapons? The whole world against them again? You say we are NAIVE? Give me a break. Saddam was going to use them and that would what, force the UN to do something?"

What benefit did Saddam get out of invading Iran and invading Kuwait?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

So far the conspiracy charges against the president are not worth an ounce of "horseshit".

Fact: President Bush has claimed on more than one occassion that Iraq has attempted to acquire uranium from an African country.

Fact: The CIA knew as early as March 2002 that this claim was false.

That isn't "horseshit" - that is fact. President Bush made that claim knowing that the evidence to support it had been disproven. In addition, read some of the quotes Dread posted - they're not "horseshit" - they're the words spoken by respectable people, including members of the Bush administration. (BTW, nice post Dread!)

In addition, 75% of the worlds energy supply is in close proximity to where SADDAM and the results of his behavior are.

...

Any country with Saddams level of behavior and WMD capabilities in close proximity to 75% of the worlds energy supplies, is an immediate danger. Luckily, no other leader of another country has Saddam's level of international behavior + WMD capabilities and is in close proximity to a majority of the planets energy supplies.

...

Ever wonder what the effects of a nuclear detonation on Oil fields in Saudi Arabia would be?

...

How much do you want to risk the security of the global economy?

Those reasons aren't an acceptable justification for a war which has killed 8000 innocent Iraqi people as well as devastating their country and also killing numerous US and UK soldiers. If the reason for going to war was that Saddam ruled a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world then President Bush should have been honest about that. Does your suggestion that Saddam was a threat because of the location of his country imply that the US would happily ignore another dictator who murdered his people so long as he didn't have any influence on the world's supply of oil?

Saddam's possession of WMD considering his past behavior was defined as a "Clear and Present Danger" in 1991 which is why he was forced to give up his WMD in Resolution 687. The USA and other member states have had the right to respond to Iraqi violations with the all means necessary in order to bring compliance, ever since resolution 678 was passed back in 1990! The UN and the Security Council approved the use of force again in resolution 1441 and their recognition of the coalition forces as the "Authority" in 1483 reaffirms that was indeed the case.

Your claim is that the US acted under the authority of the UN? In that case, explain this to me: Numerous other security council members made it clear that they wished to pass a further resolution specifically authorising the use of force before such force was used. They further made it clear that they did not believe it was appropriate at that time to use force and so would vote against any such resolution. Therefore the US and UK made the decision not to have a vote in the UN Security Council on whether a war was justified. They decided to act alone because they knew they would be defeated in a vote. How on earth can you claim the UN authorised war when the US and UK had to avoid having a vote on the subject as they knew they would lose such a vote?

Saddam never showed any evidence of the destruction of which there would be plenty of if what he said was in fact so.

Where is the evidence either of existing weapons or of their destruction? Presumably then the US and UK can't claim that the reason they haven't found weapons is that they've been destroyed as there would have to be plenty of evidence if that was true. Where do you think the weapons are now? How long should the US and UK have to find the weapons before people become suspicious about their use as a justification for war?

The quotes are fine, but it does not change the fact that most of the administrations case is still based on the information from 1998.

But it shows that lots of the evidence used to justify attacking Iraq to the American people was incorrect! Is that not of concern? Is it acceptable for the President to mislead the public?

Do I have to point out again that the coalition already had the legal right to act based on multiple resolutions passed by the security council?

If the US had the backing of the UN then why couldn't it have a vote on the subject? Why did it have to attack Iraq without first having the vote in the security council that other members of the UN wanted? Could it possibly because it knew that the majority of Security Council members did not support its decision to attack Iraq?

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,

"That isn't "horseshit" - that is fact. President Bush made that claim knowing that the evidence to support it had been disproven. In addition, read some of the quotes Dread posted - they're not "horseshit" - they're the words spoken by respectable people, including members of the Bush administration."

What I said so far is "horseshit" is not the use of intelligence that later was shown to be incorrect, but the charge that President Bush new the evidence was incorrect by used it anyways. There is no evidence that Bush himself knew the evidence was incorrect. The Quotes are not "horseshit" but their also not the majority of the Presidents case for war against Iraq.

"Those reasons aren't an acceptable justification for a war which has killed 8000 innocent Iraqi people as well as devastating their country and also killing numerous US and UK soldiers. If the reason for going to war was that Saddam ruled a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world then President Bush should have been honest about that. Does your suggestion that Saddam was a threat because of the location of his country imply that the US would happily ignore another dictator who murdered his people so long as he didn't have any influence on the world's supply of oil?"

Those reasons are in fact the biggest justification for war. If you understood the problems that would result from the planet being cut off from the majority of the worlds energy supplies, you'd understand why the matter would be so urgent. The Resulting economic depression( worse than the 1930s) that would cover the entire globe would kill far more people than a war to defend that area, in addition to uncountable number of other problems. Even some of the more liberal leaders in the United States agree with this. Jimmy Carter(president 1977-1981) a democrat stated he was ready to use nuclear weapons to defend Persian Gulf oil supplies. It is vital to the planet that the energy from this region not be suddenly cut off or disrupted.

Of course there were additional benefits of going to war in that Iraqi civilians were saved from the continued repression and torture by Saddam. 1,400 Iraqi civilians were killed in combat during the war. This is a small fraction of the number of Iraqi's that are normaly murdered or killed each year by Saddam and his regime. The claims of millions of deaths by the Anti-War crowd were absolutely false. The War saved far more lives than it took in addition to solving a major global security issue for the world. The policies of the Anti-War crowd would have kept Saddam's brutal repression in place and allowed him to potentially threaten the worlds supply of energy in the future. Bush's policies have prevented these problems from happening or continueing.

"Does your suggestion that Saddam was a threat because of the location of his country imply that the US would happily ignore another dictator who murdered his people so long as he didn't have any influence on the world's supply of oil?"

The US does not happily ignore world problems. US power and capability is not infinite, it is finite. When and where the US uses its military forces to solve world problems is directly tied to those problems impact on the USA and the entire world, not just the region or country imediately effected. The US does not have the military strenth to deploy troops to all the conflicts in the world that are killing innocent civilians. So it has to pick where it decides to use its limited resources in this regard. It is the responsibility of the President of the USA to first protect the vital security interest of the USA, then purely humanitarian missions with no national or wider international benefit can be worked on. Much like a parent in a poor country who will ensure her childern are fed and cared for before helping other childern.

"Your claim is that the US acted under the authority of the UN? In that case, explain this to me: Numerous other security council members made it clear that they wished to pass a further resolution specifically authorising the use of force before such force was used. They further made it clear that they did not believe it was appropriate at that time to use force and so would vote against any such resolution. Therefore the US and UK made the decision not to have a vote in the UN Security Council on whether a war was justified. They decided to act alone because they knew they would be defeated in a vote. How on earth can you claim the UN authorised war when the US and UK had to avoid having a vote on the subject as they knew they would lose such a vote?"

First, in November of 1990, the UN security council approved resolution 678 which in its body "authorized member states" "to use all means necessary" to bring about Iraqi compliance with "ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS".

Resolution 678 was never rescended in any way. In fact it was reaffirmed in resolution 687. Resolution 687 was the ceacefire agreement passed in March of 1991 following the end of the Gulf War. In this resolution Saddam was forced to give up all his WMD or face the "use of all means necessary" by member states to bring about his disarmament.

So prior to this past fall of 2002, the legal framework was already in place for the coalition to invade and disarm Iraq. As a matter of goodwill and despite already having the legal justification for an invasion, the Bush administration in the fall of 2002 decided to give Saddam "one last chance". This resolution was resolution 1441 and reafirmed prior resolutions 678 and 687. It again, authorized "Serious Consequences" if Iraq failed its "one last chance". Conseqences that a country could suffer in international relations are well defined. Iraq was already suffering the most difficult conseqences short of war which are, stiff international sanctions and a weapons embargo.

In light of resolutions 678 and 687, the fact that Iraq was already suffering all conseqences short of war, "Serious Conseqences" in resolution 1441 could only mean one thing, military force to disarm Iraq.

There are those that will debate that 1441 did not specifically state military force. But the resolution that authorized the removal of Iraq from Kuwait did not specifically state the use of military force either. That language was actually withdrawn because of protest from the then Soviet Union.

There were discussions about another vote but it never happened and there for from a legal standpoint, it means nothing. People can speculate forever the point, purpose, and results of another resolution beyond 1441 before the war, but thats all it will ever be.

I can state that the UN authorized the war because or resolutions 678, 687, and 1441.

In addition, resolution 1483, passed on May 22, recognizes the USA, UK and Australia as the "Authority" in Iraq and gives them command of the rebuilding and restructuring of Iraq. The UN would never recognize any form of occupation or stationing that was brought about through illegal means which is why Soviet occupation in Afghanistan or Iraqi occupation of Kuwait were never recognized by the UN, because the actions that achieved those occupations were clearly illegal.

So resolution 1483 is one more resolution that approves the actions of the USA and other member states that were involved in operation Iraqi Freedom.


"Where is the evidence either of existing weapons or of their destruction? Presumably then the US and UK can't claim that the reason they haven't found weapons is that they've been destroyed as there would have to be plenty of evidence if that was true. Where do you think the weapons are now? How long should the US and UK have to find the weapons before people become suspicious about their use as a justification for war?"

If Saddam destroyed the WMD, Saddam would have plenty of evidence he COULD show the international community. If Saddam destroyed much of his WMD and saved a portion of it, then buried it very deeply somewhere in the desert regions of Iraq, it might not be found for decades if ever. If he destroyed none of it and buried it all, the same holds true.

Its Saddams responsibility NOT the international community, to prove or show what happened to the WMD itself between 1998 and 2002. Thats the way the ceacefire was set up. The international community did not have to prove Saddam had WMD at any time, Saddam had to prove that he did not have WMD. Saddam had the means to do just that, but he chose not to.

The only responsibility the USA and UK have is to insure that Saddam or other countries or groups do not have the WMD. There should not be suspicion over the justification for war, because the justification for war was SADDAM's refusal to comply with the resolutions that required HIM to give up his WMD or show the remains of destruction. Refusal to cooperate in that process is the "justification for war". It was Saddams responsibility to show what happened to the WMD he had in 1998. Saddam never did this. Its as simple as that.

"But it shows that lots of the evidence used to justify attacking Iraq to the American people was incorrect! Is that not of concern? Is it acceptable for the President to mislead the public?"

To a certain extent that might be true, but it is not surprising nor the first time intelligence was found to be incorrect. It will indeed happen again because there is no such thing as "perfect intelligence". It is a concern and the US government is always working on new methods to correct and improve intelligence gathering capabilities. More funding is needed in this area of the defense budget despite the protest from the left.

Its not acceptable for the President to lie to the public, but there is no evidence at all that the President or anyone in the administration lied to the public.

"If the US had the backing of the UN then why couldn't it have a vote on the subject?"

Because as I said before, the subject was already voted on, and the UN backed the decision.

"Why did it have to attack Iraq without first having the vote in the security council that other members of the UN wanted?"

The UN already voted on this in resolution 678, 687, and more recently 1441. The use of force was already authorized if Iraq was found to be in material breech of its obligations.


"Could it possibly because it knew that the majority of Security Council members did not support its decision to attack Iraq?"

No. The security council unanimously approved the most recent resolution (resolution 1441) regarding the use of force in Iraq 15-0.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

As expected, the CIA takes the blame. Goodbye Tennet. Hello Teflon George.

Bush Team Split as CIA Becomes the Fall Guy
by Tim Reid in Washington
Published on Saturday, July 12, 2003 by the Times/UK

ONE BY ONE, all the President?s men rounded on George Tenet yesterday, forcing the CIA Director to issue a resounding mea culpa that is likely to bring his career to an abrupt end.

The first salvo in what degenerated into open warfare within the Bush Administration was fired by the President himself, blaming the CIA for the inclusion of a false claim about Iraq?s nuclear weapons program in his State of the Union address last January.

The extraordinary public blame Mr Bush heaped upon the agency was underscored by Condoleezza Rice, his National Security Adviser, who summoned reporters covering Mr Bush?s Africa tour to tell them that the CIA had ?cleared the speech in its entirety?.

Their finger-pointing exposed the bitter blame game raging within the Administration as the issue of Saddam Hussein?s alleged weapons of mass destruction finally caught fire in Washington.

It capped one of the worst weeks Mr Bush has endured since the September 11 attacks and put the normally sure-footed White House on the defensive as it struggled to protect the President from allegations that he he may have knowingly lied to the American public.The Oval Office?s attack on the CIA caused a sensation on Capitol Hill, and brought calls from Democrats for a congressional investigation. The internal warfare was triggered by last week?s White House admission that Mr Bush was wrong to have claimed in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa. That claim was based on intelligence reports that Saddam sought nuclear material from Niger.

After it emerged that the CIA and State Department were told 11 months before the speech that the claim was bogus, congressmen demanded to know why Mr Bush repeated the allegation.

In anonymous briefings to the US media on Thursday CIA officials insisted that the agency explicitly told the White House that the claim was false before the speech. They also said they had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the British Government on this.

That triggered yesterday?s furious White House counter-attack, with Mr Bush saying: ?I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services.?

Dr Rice also insisted that the CIA cleared the speech in its entirety. ?If the CIA ? the Director of Central Intelligence ? had said ?Take this out of the speech?, it would have been gone.? She added that Mr Tenet was a ?terrific? Director, but in Washington her words were seen as devastating.

Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also weighed in. Mr Roberts, a Republican, said that ten days before the speech the CIA was still standing behind the Niger claim. ?If the CIA had changed its position, it was incumbent on the Director of Central Intelligence to correct the record and bring it to the immediate attention of the President. It appears that he failed,? Mr Roberts said. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, fueled the row by saying that he had not included the uranium-from-Africa claim in his presentation to the United Nations a week after Mr Bush?s speech because he doubted its veracity. John McCain, a Republican senator, said that there should be an investigation to determine how the bogus information made its way into the address. Dick Durbin, a senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: ?Somebody in the White House knew. This really calls into question the leadership in the White House and our intelligence agencies.?

Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential contender, raised Watergate?s famous refrain: ?We need to know what the President knew and when he knew it.? He demanded the resignation of any official who failed to tell Mr Bush the information was false.

?The only other possibility, which is unthinkable, is that the President of the United States knew himself that this was a false fact and he put it in the State of the Union anyhow. I hope for the sake of this country that did not happen,? he said. Democrats had begun taking the offensive even before yesterday?s developments, exploiting growing disquiet over mounting casualties in Iraq and over rising unemployment at home.

Mr Bush will arrive back from Africa today facing, for the first time since he took office, questions about his honesty, and looking vulnerable on foreign policy and national security ? issues that until now he has successfully used to divide Democrats and unite the public behind him.

The President continues to enjoy an enviable 60 per cent approval rating ? at this stage in their presidencies Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were 42 per cent and 47 per cent respectively ? but a Gallup poll showed that public approval for Mr Bush?s stewardship of Iraq has fallen from almost 90 per cent in May to 58 per cent now.

Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, admitted this week that the monthly cost of the occupation is $3.9 billion (?2.75 billion), nearly double the Pentagon?s previous estimate.

Public and congressional disquiet also mounted after General Tommy Franks, the recently retired coalition commander, said US troops may have to remain in Iraq for up to four years.

(entire article posted because link requires subscription)

 

[Klaus]

sulawesigirl4:

If it was the fault of the Secret Services again the US has a real problem, first they messed it up before 9/11, now because of them there was a country invaded and several soldiers died..
If this all is true there is imho more than one head to change.

I wonder who misscalculated the monthly costs of the occupation

Klaus

 

[STING2]

The inacurracy of the one piece of intelligence that got into the State Of The Union Address in no way changes the fact that SADDAM failed to cooperate in giving up his WMD and the actions to solve that problem, ie, military invasion were completely appropriate and beneficial not only to the Iraqi people but, international security and the international community.

 

[Klaus]

STING2:

there are more things like that, it's not a single mistake, Tony Blair stretched the truth also.

to quote the NY Times:

Greg Thielmann, a proliferation expert who worked for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, added this week: "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: `We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers.' When you sense this kind of attitude, you quash the spirit of intellectual inquiry and integrity."

The coalition played a risky game, since they didn't find the evidences they were talking about (Iraq, a iminent danger, ready to attack the US or GB) they lost.

They know that they were wrong, that's why they start to call it a humanitarian thing (impressive, how a president and a prime minister broke friendship with lots of long-term firends just to help the poor Iraqis to get the liberation a few months earlier.

Klaus

 

[a-mole]

what I think is interesting:
In almost all western countries (it seems) politics (populare) are done with foreign matters...
people vote for or against the war in iraque, for or against UN enlargement and so on... but noone ever seems to care about school systems, crime, unemployment and such... and one day, when there is no freign problem to deal with at the moment, they look around and be like.. why are my taxes so high? why does my child get not enough help and proper deucation it deserves, why this why that?
always way more comfortable to think and dbate about problems concerning others where we can do the "right" thing
This was just a thought, not meaning foreign politics are not important (they are a lot!) but I couldn't help but noticing that phenomenon fact in various countries...

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

Intelligence is never perfect. Never has been, never will be. Its a mistake by anyone to take advantage of that fact to make broad unsubstantiated claims that someone lied or "streched the truth".

"The coalition played a risky game, since they didn't find the evidences they were talking about (Iraq, a iminent danger, ready to attack the US or GB) they lost."

It was not incumbent upon the coalition to have evidence of WMD, it was incubment upon Saddam Hussien to prove that he no longer had WMD or give it up.

Saddam never complied with that or any of the 17 UN resolutions, passed under CHAPTER VII rules, which is why military action became a necessity.

"They know that they were wrong, that's why they start to call it a humanitarian thing (impressive, how a president and a prime minister broke friendship with lots of long-term firends just to help the poor Iraqis to get the liberation a few months earlier."

They know they were right because the reason for acting against Saddam never rested on a single piece of intelligence that later turned out to be inaccurate as often does happen with intelligence.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

This opinion piece in the Washington Post comments on several of the talking points that have come up in this thread.

By Michael Kinsley
Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A23

Once again a mysterious criminal stalks the nation's capital. First there was the mystery sniper. Then there was the mystery arsonist. Now there is the mystery ventriloquist. The media are in a frenzy of speculation and leakage. Senators are calling for hearings. All of Washington demands an answer: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? No investigation has plumbed such depths of the unknown since O.J. Simpson's hunt for the real killer of his ex-wife. Whodunit? Was it Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick? Condoleezza Rice in the Situation Room with a bottle of Wite-Out and a felt-tipped pen?

Linguists note that the question "Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" They speculate that the two questions may have parallel answers. But philosophers are still struggling to properly analyze the Grant's Tomb issue -- let alone answer it. And experts say that even when this famous 19th century presidential puzzle is solved, it could be many years before the findings can be applied with any confidence to presidents of more recent vintage.

Lacking any real-life analogy that sufficiently captures the complexity of the Speech-gate puzzle and the challenge facing investigators dedicated to solving it, political scientists say the best comparison may be to the assassination of Major Strasser in the film "Casablanca." If you recall, Humphrey Bogart is standing over the body, holding a smoking gun. Claude Rains says, "Major Strasser has been shot! Round up the usual suspects." And yet the mystery of who killed the general is never solved.

Ever since Watergate, a smoking gun has been the standard for judging a Washington scandal. Many a miscreant has escaped with his reputation undamaged -- or even enhanced by the publicity and pseudo-vindication -- because there was no "smoking gun" such as the Watergate tapes. But now it seems that standard has been lifted. You would think that on the question of who told a lie in a speech, evidence seen on TV by millions of people, might count for something. Apparently not. The Bush administration borrows from Groucho: "Who are you going to believe -- us or your own two eyes?"

The case for the defense is a classic illustration of what lawyers call "arguing in the alternative." The Bushies say (1) it wasn't really a lie, (2) someone else told the lie and (3) the lie doesn't matter. All these defenses are invalid.

(1) Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see -- he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpicking, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business -- he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some preexisting basis for believing whatever-it-is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to "learn" something that is not true? I'm not sure. But it certainly is not possible to say that someone has "learned" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was added as protection only because doubts had been expressed internally.

(2) The Bush argument blaming the CIA for failing to remove this falsehood from the president's speech is based on the logic of "stop me before I lie again." Bush spoke the words, his staff wrote them, those involved carefully overlooked reasons for skepticism. It would have been nice if the CIA had caught this falsehood, but its failure to do so hardly exonerates others. Furthermore, the CIA is part of the executive branch, as is the White House staff. If the president can disown anything he says that he didn't actually find out or think up and write down all by himself, he is more or less beyond criticism. Which seems to be the idea here.

The president says he has not lost his confidence in CIA Director George Tenet. How sweet. If someone backed me up in a lie and then took the fall for me when it was exposed, I'd have confidence in him too.

(3) The final argument: It was only 16 words! What's the big deal? The bulk of the case for war remains intact. Logically, of course, this argument will work for any single thread of the pro-war argument. Perhaps the president will tell us which particular points among those he and his administration have made are the ones we are supposed to take seriously. Or how many gimmes he feels entitled to take in the course of this game. Is it a matter of word count? When he hits 100 words, say, are we entitled to assume that he cares whether the words are true?