so they blatantly lie and you dont care

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

"Not according to the head of the UN weapons inspection team. He has stated that fact since the WMD's in Iraq became a big thing again."

Richard Butler was the head of the UN team in 1998. The report they filed back then is widely available to public. There is no evidence to show what happened to Iraq's stockpile of WMD that they had in 1998.

If Iraq did not have WMD in 1998, the United Nations would have ended the inspections process itself and certified that Iraq no longer had WMD. Providing that other obligations were met by Iraq, sanctions would have been lifted in 1998-1999.

Iraq has never once fully complied with its obligations under UN resolutions and the Ceacefire Agreement from 1991.

The current UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was given the task in the fall of 2002 to account for WMD that Iraq indeed had in 1998. AT NO TIME DID HANS BLIX SAY THAT IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMD IN 1998! If he believed that Iraq had no WMD in 1998, he would have little reason to search for such WMD in 2002.

What Hans Blix did say is that they failed to find any WMD in Iraq during the inspections process from late 2002 to 2003! Their failure to find such WMD does not mean it does not exists. If the WMD was in fact destroyed, they failed to find evidence of that either. The only thing Hans Blix has said is that in recent inspections they have been unable to locate the WMD from 1998 or find evidence that it was destroyed. The WMD that Iraq was documented in having at the end of 1998 is simply missing.

The fact that Hans Blix failed to find out what happened to it does not meen it no longer exists. It has to exists in some form whether its intact or destroyed.

If there is one thing that everyone in the UN agrees on, its that it is a fact that Iraq had WMD at the end of 1998! This fact is officially documented by the United Nations. The only question is where and in what condition is the WMD now?

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

ok then! yippie! lets go start a war!

yeeeeeeeeeehaw!!!!

*fires guns in the air and clicks heels

 

[nbcrusader]

 

[Scarletwine]

This is the best description of the Bush Admn I've seen & fits right in here.

How Badly Do You Want to Win?

By U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky
June 6, 2003

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) made the following speech at the Campaign for America's Future conference in Washington DC on June 4, 2003.

"They lie with impunity. Let's fact it. They're liars. They lied about the reason they took our sons and daughters to war. They spend millions of dollars in campaign ads saying they are for a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. They call their dirty air legislation "Clear Skies" and their plan to give the timber companies our trees, "Healthy Forests." They call their job-killing economic program a "jobs program." They say they are for peace when they are for war. Millions of children are left behind under their miserly "No Child Left Behind" education bill. They tout a child tax credit and then silently drop it in favor of more tax cuts for millionaires. "

She sums up all the reasons why I HATE Bush & Co.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

So I guess, using the logic she uses above, it would be accurate to say that Rep. Jan Schakowsky was for the continuation of the reign of Saddam Hussien and the threats that would pose to the rest of the international community in addition to approving the slaughter of thousands of more Iraqi's to add to the 1.5 million that Saddam had already murdered?

 

[Scarletwine]

I always loved Yosemite Sam

Put it there Pardner! How do you write spitting. Could use a PLEBA

STING2
S- O- S

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

S- O- S ?

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

Scarletwine,

So I guess, using the logic she uses above, it would be accurate to say that Rep. Jan Schakowsky was for the continuation of the reign of Saddam Hussien and the threats that would pose to the rest of the international community in addition to approving the slaughter of thousands of more Iraqi's to add to the 1.5 million that Saddam had already murdered?

oh yes, saddam was such a threat. a twat, yes. an international threat - no.

 

[verte76]

Saddam is a but his Iraq was a second-rate military power.

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

i think id be more worried about ethiopia's overwhelming airforce than saddams wmd program.

 

[STING2]

Red Ships of Scalla-festa,


"oh yes, saddam was such a threat. a twat, yes. an international threat - no."

I consider anyone that attacks unprovoked, 4 different countries in the space of a few years and in the process kills over a million foreign civilian soldiers and civilians to be an international threat. I consider a person that had the capability barring US military intervention, to take over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, there by controlling 65% of the worlds Energy resources to be a threat.

In addition, one that engages in that behavior that also stockpiles Chemical and biological weapons and uses Nerve Gas against its own civilians and Iranian soldiers on a scale not ever seen before, is indeed a serious international threat. In addition, anyone that has the above behavior that was at one point only a year a way from developing a fully operational Nuclear Weapon is indeed a serious international threat.

Verte76,

Do you think Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Israel considered SADDAM to be a non-threatening second rate military power?

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

like i said before! lets go to war to solve our issues! violence ends violence! if we kill them before they kill us, all will be well.

what a wonderful lala land doctorine.

 

[STING2]

Sorry, but being a pacifict and pretending the threat does not exist does not have a very good historical record. Several countries tried such things in reaction to Hitlers rise to power and Germany's rearmament. The results were over 50 million dead a few years later. Pacificm, isolationism, and non-involvement do not work. Intervention and engagement is needed to solve problems.

 

[Scarletwine]

GOP Fights Hearing on Iraq's Weapons

WASHINGTON (June 11) - Majority Republicans in Congress brushed aside Democratic pleas for a formal investigation into the handling of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs, saying Wednesday that routine oversight should suffice.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said some of the Democratic criticism of the handling of the intelligence has ''been simply politics and for political gain.''

''I will not allow the committee to be politicized or to be used as an unwitting tool for any political strategist,'' the Kansas Republican said.

He said criticism was causing divisiveness among intelligence agencies and ''go back to the days of risk aversion, the primary cause of 9/11.'' A congressional investigation of the attacks found that agencies were weakened by a culture that discouraged employees from taking risks for fear of being criticized.

Leading Senate Democrats have called for a more thorough investigation in light of doubts raised about some of the intelligence and the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction. They want to know whether intelligence on weapons programs was inaccurate or manipulated to make the case for war.

Roberts and the Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, had tried unsuccessfully to work out an agreement on an inquiry. No Democrats attended the news conference Wednesday by Roberts, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va.

After the news conference, Rockefeller said ''what they appear to be doing is entirely inadequate and slow paced and potentially kind of sleepwalking through history.'' He said he's not sure '' whether they really want to get to the facts of what actually happened.''

The political stakes of any investigation could be high before next year's election if President Bush's primary reason for going to war continues to be called into question. Roberts, Goss and Warner all said the White House did not attempt to influence their decisions on an investigation.

In fact, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, traveling with Bush for a presidential speech in Chicago, said the administration ''welcomes the review.''

''We always work together with Congress on dealing with the threat of Iraqi possession of WMD,'' he said. ''And we'll continue to work with Congress on the facts that led previous administrations, Democrats and Republicans alike, to know he (Saddam) had WMD.''

''This is an important part of Congress' oversight and we welcome it,'' Fleischer said.

Roberts said his committee will evaluate prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its connection to terrorist groups. It will examine whether the findings were reasonable and accurate. The CIA has begun submitting details of the intelligence that supported administration claims on Iraq's weapons programs.

Roberts said closed-door hearings will begin next week and ''when the committee deems it appropriate, we will make whatever public statements that are necessary.'' The Senate Armed Services Committee has already begun closed-door hearings on the intelligence issue.

Rockefeller and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, have called for a more formal, joint review by the two committees. They say hearings should be held publicly and privately, administration and intelligence officials should be interviewed and a public report issued.

''You need a structure for an inquiry - What is it we're looking for? - so it's done in a thorough way,'' Levin said.

Many Republicans and some Democrats have no doubts that Saddam Hussein had chemical or biological weapons, based on his government's failure to satisfy U.N. demands for proof that the weapons it once admitted to having had been destroyed. The White House has urged patience in searching for the weapons.

Those seeking an investigation say the issue goes beyond the failure to find weapons. Some of the administration's evidence of Iraqi weapons programs has proven false. Documents indicating Iraq imported uranium from Niger were forgeries. Aluminum tubes described as intended for nuclear weapons were likely meant for conventional artillery rockets.

What's at issue, Levin said, is whether American intelligence can be trusted in the future as a basis for action against other adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea. ''I've got to have confidence in that intelligence, and the American people have to have confidence if we're going to lead the world in a war on terrorism,'' he said Tuesday.

Goss, R-Fla., said his panel will conduct a review similar to that planned by Roberts. The committee's top Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of California, said she and her staff will carefully examine the CIA documents before deciding how they want to proceed.

''The war was premised on the notion that there was a clear and present danger to American interests and we need to understand whether all of those claims were appropriate,'' she said in an interview.

AP-NY-06-11-03 1222EDT

 

[verte76]

Verte76,

Do you think Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Israel considered SADDAM to be a non-threatening second rate military power?

OK, I admit that I only know a little bit about Turkey's position. This whole thing put Turkey in a pickle because they used to be a major trading partner with Iraq. They supported Operation Desert Storm and this was not good for their economy. They had to have a reason to support Desert Storm however because it did cost them a trading partner. They didn't support this latest strike, however. It's on their web site and I think it's a previous edition of "Ambassador's Window", not the present one. Kuwait definitely thought Saddam was a threat. So did Israel. I didn't use the word "non-threatening" did I? Am I getting amnesia? Damn.

 

[Klaus]

STING2: invading with false reasons proclaiming it was self defense also has an ugly history (see the begin of WorldWar II)

So both things can be wrong and they can be right - there are definetly times where just watching from the outside isn't enough. but.. any democratic elected government shouldn't try to get his nation into war with faked arguments. High officials of both pro iraq II war countries admited that they did this, because their people wouldn't have supported this war if they had just known the facts.

Klaus

 

[verte76]

STING2: invading with false reasons proclaiming it was self defense also has an ugly history (see the begin of WorldWar II)

So both things can be wrong and they can be right - there are definetly times where just watching from the outside isn't enough. but.. any democratic elected government shouldn't try to get his nation into war with faked arguments. High officials of both pro iraq II war countries admited that they did this, because their people wouldn't have supported this war if they had just known the facts.

Klaus

I agree with that, Klaus. You don't tell the citizens of your country there are WMD's if you don't know they are there.

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

STING2: "invading with false reasons proclaiming it was self defense also has an ugly history (see the begin of WorldWar II)"

"So both things can be wrong and they can be right - there are definetly times where just watching from the outside isn't enough. but.. any democratic elected government shouldn't try to get his nation into war with faked arguments. High officials of both pro iraq II war countries admited that they did this, because their people wouldn't have supported this war if they had just known the facts."

The USA has never invaded any countries for false reasons.

No high officials in the USA or the UK have said that they knowningly used intelligence that was false in order to get support for a war. It might be true that intelligence was used that later turned out to be inaccurate, but that happens in every war and in fact in every police headquarters in every city on the planet.

The majority of the USA's and other member states reasons for going to war are based on Iraq's non-compliance with multiple UN resolutions. According to the United Nations, Iraq failed to comply with the resolutions especially those dealing with WMD. Iraq was in material breech according to the United Nations, and Resolution 678, 687, 1441 all authorized the use of force in such cases in order to bring about compliance. The latest resolution 1483 has recognized the USA and UK as the AUTHORITY thereby further legitamizing the actions taken to achieve the current condition.

The evidence in the UN report at the end of 1998 is more than enough to show material breech by Iraq there by justifying military action. That report showed that Iraq had hundreds of tons of Mustard Gas, Thousands of liters of Anthrax, an thousands of shells capable of delivering such substances. The majority of the Bush administrations evidence is based on that UN report.

Ultimately, you have two options. You either believe the Bush administrations contention that Saddam still had WMD because he never showed what happened to the WMD that he did have in 1998, or you believe Saddam who claims that he destroyed the WMD between 1998 and 2002, and somehow lost or was able to destroy all the evidence of such a dismantling or destruction. Iraq was required though to verifiably dismantle the WMD or hand it over, not verifying the dismantlement or destruction of WMD is a violation of the resolutions itself.

You can either believe Saddam's regimes claims or you can believe the Bush administrations claims which are primarily based on the UN report from 1998.

Can you honestly trust Saddam at all when he claims that he on his own destroyed his WMD from 1998-2002, yet was unwilling to provide any evidence to prove such a claim?

 

[Dreadsox]

Here are the quotes that sold the war:

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"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. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003



Taken from this excellent article:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

 

[STING2]

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Based on the United Nations report from 1998, and lacking evidence to show dismantlement or disposal of that WMD and related facilities since then, the administration would have to assume that the above is indeed true. To not, would risk US National Security.

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Based on the UN inspectors report from 1998, this is true.


"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Whether this is true or not of course depends on the source. The statement itself is indicating this is so based on certain sources. Sometimes such sources prove to be accurate but they are often inaccurate as well. That is the nature of the intelligence environment.

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

Based on the UN inspectors report in 1998, this is a fact.

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

Based on the UN inspectors report in 1998, this is a fact.

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

This could be another case where the intelligence turned out to be inaccurate, something that happens all the time. But when were talking WMD, there is no room to be taking chances with such info.

"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. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

This is all true. Saddam kept a close lid on his scientists and certainly had meetings with them. Iraq did build structures at sites that had been apart of its Nuclear program in the past. While that may not mean such structures have anything to do with WMD, it is certainly a possibility with a country that is in open violation of its requirements to disarm WMD, and is rather limited in its resources and money making such building suspicious looking. There is a lot of disagreement about the "aluminum tubes" but one thing is certain, the tubes were not purchased for humanitarian purposes.

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

Based on the UN report from 1998, this is true.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Without evidence to show what Saddam Hussein had done with his WMD that the UN documented that he had in 1998, for the sake of security, you have to conclude that the above is true. In my opinion, trusting SADDAM's claim about what he did with the WMD, without evidence, is not safe.



The only things above that were not documented by the UN in 1998 and the Bush administration may be lacking in hard evidence, is the UAVs and the order to use WMD. If those two things turn out not to be true, then its unfortunately inaccurate intelligence. The case for military action was already made well before those two items were brought into the picture. Most of Bush's statements are supported by the UN inspectors report from 1998.

As far as what happened to the WMD since 1998, you have two options.

#1 You can believe Bush's case that Saddam still had them because he failed to give them over or prove that he destroyed them, since 1998, when it is a fact that he did have these materials.

#2 You can can take SADDAM at his word, that he destroyed his entire WMD program, but unfortunately, mysteriously, does not have one shred of evidence to prove that.

 

[BVS]

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
Based on the United Nations report from 1998, and lacking evidence to show dismantlement or disposal of that WMD and related facilities since then, the administration would have to assume that the above is indeed true. To not, would risk US National Security.

You know what they say about people who assume. Don't assume, find out for me. Could you do that, I mean you're only the freakin President of the United States.

Whether this is true or not of course depends on the source. The statement itself is indicating this is so based on certain sources. Sometimes such sources prove to be accurate but they are often inaccurate as well. That is the nature of the intelligence environment.

Once again, why would you make this statement without checking your sources. Any reasonable person would ask for that. Don't feed us speculation and lies, we would like the truth.

This could be another case where the intelligence turned out to be inaccurate, something that happens all the time. But when were talking WMD, there is no room to be taking chances with such info.

Isn't that the truth.

It is seeking nuclear weapons."
Based on the UN inspectors report in 1998, this is a fact.

Did the report really state this? How did they know?

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Really?! Ever devised, huh?

I'm not going to argue the legality or the reasons behind the war, for this war is all but over. But I will not stand for a President that lies and manipulates to try and gain my support for this war.

 

[Dreadsox]

Foreign Views: US exaggerated the Iraq threat

By Fareed Zakaria

Threat assessment must be based not simply on the intentions of an adversary, but on his capabilities as well. This is an important lesson as we move forward to deal with repressive regimes like those in North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. They are evil and may need to be confronted. But let us do so with a clear and accurate picture of the threat they pose, not some figment of our fevered imaginations

It is too early to conclude that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. A little history might provide perspective. Since 1991, United Nations weapons inspectors found and destroyed the following in Iraq: a supergun; 48 Scud missiles; 40,000 chemical munitions; 500,000 litres of chemical-weapons agents; 1.8 million litres of precursor chemicals, and large quantities of equipment related to biological warfare.

Still, inspectors were sure that large quantities of weapons remained missing. In July 1998, for example, U.N. inspectors found a document showing that Iraq had deliberately overstated?by 6,000?the number of chemical bombs it had used in the Iran-Iraq War. (The document was immediately snatched from their hands by Iraqi ?minders.?) The 6,000 chemical bombs?manufactured but not used?are still missing.

But it is also clear that the United States government overstated the threat posed by Iraq. It exaggerated what it knew and made definitive statements where the intelligence was murky. Richard Butler, the United Nations? chief weapons inspector during the late 1990s and a supporter of the war, wrote last week in The Australian, ?Clearly a decision had been taken to pump up the case against Iraq.?

This should not surprise us. For decades some conservatives, including many who now wield great influence, have had a tendency to vastly exaggerate the threat posed by tyrannical regimes.

It all started with the now famous ?Team B? exercise. During the early 1970s, hard-line conservatives pilloried the CIA for being soft on the Soviets. As a result, CIA Director George Bush agreed to allow a team of outside experts to look at the intelligence and come to their own conclusions. Team B?which included Paul Wolfowitz?produced a scathing report, claiming that the Soviet threat had been badly underestimated.

In retrospect, Team B?s conclusions were wildly off the mark. Describing the Soviet Union, in 1976, as having ?a large and expanding Gross National Product,? it predicted that it would modernize and expand its military at an awesome pace. For example, it predicted that the Backfire bomber ?probably will be produced in substantial numbers, with perhaps 500 aircraft off the line by early 1984.? In fact, the Soviets had 235 in 1984.

The reality was that even the CIA?s own estimates?savaged as too low by Team B?were, in retrospect, gross exaggerations. In 1989, the CIA published an internal review of its threat assessments from 1974 to 1986 and came to the conclusion that every year it had ?substantially overestimated? the Soviet threat along all dimensions. For example, in 1975 the CIA forecast that within 10 years the Soviet Union would replace 90 percent of its long-range bombers and missiles. In fact, by 1985, the Soviet Union had been able to replace less than 60 percent of them.

In the 1990s, some of these same conservatives decided that China was the new enemy. The only problem was that China was still a Third World country and could hardly be seen as a grave threat to the United States. What followed was wild speculation about the size of the Chinese military and accusations that it had engaged in massive theft of American nuclear secrets. This came to a crescendo with the publication of the Cox Commission Report in 1999, which claimed that Chinese military spending was twice what the CIA estimated. The Cox report is replete with speculation, loose assumptions and errors of fact. The book it footnotes for its military-spending numbers, for example, does not say what the report claims.

Iraq is part of a pattern. In each of these cases, arguments about the threat posed by a country rest in large part on the character of the regime. The Team B report explains that the CIA?s analysis was flawed because it was based on too much ?hard data??meaning facts?and neglected to divine Soviet intentions. The Chinese regime is assumed to be a mortal danger because it is Leninist. Saddam was assumed to be working on a vast weapons program because he was an evil man. Let?s never forget that these regimes are nasty, and that does matter greatly. But threat assessment must be based not simply on the intentions of an adversary, but on his capabilities as well. This is an important lesson as we move forward to deal with repressive regimes like those in North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. They are evil and may need to be confronted. But let us do so with a clear and accurate picture of the threat they pose, not some figment of our fevered imaginations.

What we discovered about the Soviet Union after the cold war was that it was every bit as evil as we had thought?indeed more so?but that it was a whole lot less powerful than we had feared. That is what we will probably discover about Saddam Hussein?s Iraq. ?Newsweek

http://www.msnbc.com/news/923752.asp#BODY

 

[Dreadsox]

Richard Butler expresses concern over Iraq war rhetoric PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
PM - Monday, 2 June , 2003 18:10:00
Reporter: Alison Caldwell
MARK COLVIN: We begin with the continuing storm over the intelligence that British, American and Australian Governments told us before the Iraq war proved the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

It's become even more controversial because of reports from Britain and America that US Secretary of State Colin Powell and the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had serious doubts before the war about the reliability of the intelligence.

But this morning on AM Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said there was no need for any review of Australia's intelligence in the matter, though Australia has always said weapons of mass destruction were the reason for taking our troops into the conflict.

Tonight the former United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector Richard Butler says Australians should be demanding a public inquiry. Richard Butler spoke to Alison Caldwell a short time ago.

ALISON CALDWELL: Richard Butler, if the coalition forces haven't yet found weapons of mass destruction, does that mean they aren't there, or that they were never there?

RICHARD BUTLER: No it does not. Everyone in the Security Council knows that there was a residual quantity of weapons left in 1998 when Saddam shut me and my inspectors down and threw us out.

I can tell you the exact numbers, Alison, of chemical weapons, biological weapons and missing missile parts. Everyone agreed on that; the Security Council, the Russians, the French who so strongly opposed the Americans last year, everyone agreed.

Five years later, Hans Blix, my successor reported to the Security Council that there was this residual quantity of weapons unaccounted for. Iraq said it didn't have them anymore. When Hans Blix and his inspectors tried to find them, Iraq wouldn't let them do so, or wouldn't produce the evidence of their destruction. So that was hanging out there.

Let's call that quantity number one. Quantity number one did exist and it was never properly accounted for. Quantity number two is the stuff that the British and the Americans pumped up for the war.

ALISON CALDWELL: It's different?

RICHARD BUTLER: Well, yes it is. Tony Blair in his dossier said that there were, that the Iraqis had been out seeking uranium for a nuclear weapon. The documentation that supported that was examined and shown to be a forgery.

He said the Iraqis could load up their chemical weapons in 45 minutes. We now learn that that was something added in by his speech writer on the basis of what one Iraqi defector told them, and so on.

Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council made elaborate claims that went beyond quantity number one, in order to justify the war. Specifically he said that there are serious weapons there that could be given to terrorists and we've got to go, therefore, to invade Iraq and find those weapons.

This quantity number two may never be found, because maybe it never existed. There's an investigation taking place now in Washington and London about their intelligence materials as a result of public demand.

ALISON CALDWELL: Do you think we need an investigation?

RICHARD BUTLER: But there should be such an investigation because it's now extremely questionable that the propaganda, the pumping up for quantity number two was ever true.

ALISON CALDWELL: Do you think the Western intelligence then got it wrong, or was it the politicisation of the intelligence? Do you think politicisation of intelligence happened?

RICHARD BUTLER: Well, all the evidence seems to suggest that that's what happened. The White House created a special cell within the Pentagon to create the necessary materials to justify this war. The United Kingdom too it seems from Number 10 Downing Street intervened in what was pure intelligence.

Alison, I'm not suggesting that pure intelligence is always right. But what I am saying is there are questions to be answered here about whether or not intelligence materials were manipulated or fabricated to give the weapons of mass destruction rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

ALISON CALDWELL: The Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said on AM this morning that he'd recently spoken to the officials from the Office of National Assessment, and he was satisfied as they were, that their intelligence was solid. He doesn't see the need for an inquiry or a review.

RICHARD BUTLER: I heard him this morning speaking on AM, and I was flabbergasted. With his usual haughty pomposity he said, "Well, you only look into something if something went wrong. Nothing went wrong here, we won't be looking into it."

What an evasive piece of nonsense. ONA, our own national office, Office of National Assessments is a place from which a senior officer resigned in the run-up to the war because he said that I will not participate anymore in this manipulation, Andrew Wilkie.

And by the way, on the same day today, front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, Senator Robert Hill the Defence Minister, Alexander Downer's direct colleague in this matter, he's saying that there should be an investigation of whether or not these intelligence materials were accurate.

ALISON CALDWELL: What about these two trailers? The CIA report into these trailers found in Iraq says that there were probably designed to produce biological weapons agents. What do you make of those trailers?

RICHARD BUTLER: I think those trailers were mobile laboratories. Look, everyone knew that Iraq had a major biological weapons program and a chemical weapons program, a missile program that was illegal, and has striven to get an atomic bomb.

That's quantity number one. They remain unaccounted for to this day. They've either been destroyed by the Iraqis or buried, but that's different from the quantity number two, the existence of which became a much more important part of the lead-up to the war.

And I think there's evidence emerging now that that was hyped. That was spun, that was possibly created for political reasons. And I think for the historical record we need to know what were the facts there, including to what extent the Australian Government, the Howard Government participated in that.

MARK COLVIN: The former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Richard Butler speaking to Alison Caldwell.

 

[Dreadsox]

Richard Butler in the article above clearly points out two things. The first is that he believes that Iraq had the illegal weapons that he calls "quantity number 1". What he finds troublesome is the pack of lies that was used to sell this war which he calls "quantity number 2".

Looking at the Newsweek article and the transcript of Butler's conversation, it is very clear that we have people surrounding the President that have a history of distorting the truth and that they use fear to manipulate the American public.

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,

"You know what they say about people who assume. Don't assume, find out for me. Could you do that, I mean you're only the freakin President of the United States."

Thats why we invaded Iraq. We knew Iraq had WMD in 1998. We did not want to assume that Iraq was free of WMD based on Saddams claims in 2002. The object here is not to prove that Saddam has WMD because that is a fact, as the report in 1998 states. The object here is to INSURE that Saddam is disarmed. With Saddam's refusal to cooperate, the only way to do that was military force.

"Once again, why would you make this statement without checking your sources. Any reasonable person would ask for that. Don't feed us speculation and lies, we would like the truth."

The fact is, sometimes(especially dealing with someone like Saddam) it is impossible to know things with a high degree of certainty. In that case, you fall back on other intelligence that is true like the UN report from 1998. The intelligence then that might be suspect or speculative is simply an indication that must be considered for what it is, especially in light of Iraq's past behavior. Policy is not formed based on it, but policy is formed based on known facts and new information that could indeed be fact and based on Iraq's prior behavior must be considered. These are not lies, but the results of the hard work of the men and women in the US intelligence community. It is simply a fact that sometimes certain probable evidence turns out not to be evidence at all. Thats a fact in Police work, FBI, CIA, or even those that work in Science. But because a few details turn out not to be true, does not in anyway discredit the other information.

"This could be another case where the intelligence turned out to be inaccurate, something that happens all the time. But when were talking WMD, there is no room to be taking chances with such info."


"Isn't that the truth."

In this context, what that means is that you do not trust an uncooperative dictator that he has disarmed himself and fails to show any evidence of that disarmament. You use military force to insure that the dictator is disarmed rather than naively assuming that he has disarmed himself.



"It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"Based on the UN inspectors report in 1998, this is a fact."


"Did the report really state this? How did they know?"

The UN clearly documented Iraq's Nuclear Weapons program. At one time, Iraq was estimated only to have been a year away from developing a nuclear weapon. Saddam actually built a Nuclear Weapon, he was only missing the enriched uranium. Of course the Gulf War and UN inspections stopped this process, we think. But the book was never closed on this subject matter. Was Iraq still seeking Nuclear weapons? They certainly kept what WMD they had when the UN inspectors were kicked out and based on their past efforts, you could not assume that Iraq would not pursue such program with the inspectors gone. Because Saddam had been proven to have been seeking nuclear weapons in the pasts, one would have to produce evidence that he was not currently pursuing such weapons. With Saddams lack of cooperation, the only way to insure that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program was to bring down the regime with military force.

"But I will not stand for a President that lies and manipulates to try and gain my support for this war."

Prove one thing that the President lied about!

Do you really believe Saddam when he says he destroyed his WMD during the years from 1998-2002? Are you willing to simply take his word for it?

Bush was not going to, and its rather obvious to me why.

 

[STING2]

In response to Fareed Zakaria article:

Mr. Zakaria article is premised on his belief that all the intelligence on the threat from the Soviet Union was overestimated, therefore Mr. Bush's team, because their "conservative" indeed overestimated the threat on Iraq.

Mr. Zakaria is wrong on the first point. There are many, mainly on the left, who believe that because the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the MILITARY threat the Soviet Union posed to the world must of been exgerated or over estimated.

But lets look at the facts. Despite collapsing in 1991, the Soviet Union until the end of 1989, maintained a military of over 5 million supported by more than 20 million in the reserves. The Soviet Union at that time had 206 Armored and Mechanized Divisions. They were divided into three catagories, Cat. Adivisions in Eastern Germany and other East Block countries. Such divisions were manned at 100% levels and ready for combat in only hours. Catagory B divisions, those in the Soviet Union manned at 75% levels and capable of of being fully manned and ready for combat within 3 days. Catagory C Divisions which had 20% of their troops but could be fully manned with in 7 days and its reservist retrained in less than 60 days.

In 1989 Gorbachev admitted that the Soviet Union had over 70,000 Main Battle Tanks. Even more than was needed to equip the above divisions. Saddam Hussein at his peak had only 5,500 tanks, a small fraction of the above total. Yet Saddam succesfully defeated two of his neighbors and would have defeated more if he had not been stop.

The point here is the massive size of the Soviet Unions armed forces which was not a secret but perhaps not fully understood by many nor the threat that such a large force could pose, even without getting into important details of technology and training. The above numbers are not an overestimation but a verifiable fact.

His reading of the CIA report from 1989 is incorrect. While the CIA may have overestimated various technical area's in terms of replacement of older weapons with more modern ones in certain catagories, that cannot be extrapolated to mean the threat of the Soviet Union in ALL area's has been overestimated.

More importantly, he uses evidence of the overestimation of Soviet capabilities in regards to equipment primarily used with its nuclear force(Backfire Bombers, Ballistic missiles) and not its conventional military capabilities in regards to a war in central Europe which was the area the USA and NATO allies had over the past few decades the most difficulty in developing and keeping strong defense relative to Soviet increases in their conventional strength in that area.

In regards to China, conservatives have often been attacked for considering China an ally and a great trading partner rather than a military oponent. Still, it is a fact that Chinese defense spending is often hidden in various parts of its national budget not always on purpose though. It is also a fact that the China works very hard to get or copy western technology that they do not already have.

The group of people he discusses do not simply base their opinions on what they believe or intentions but intentions + what is factually known.

"What we discovered about the Soviet Union after the cold war was that it was every bit as evil as we had thought?indeed more so?but that it was a whole lot less powerful than we had feared. That is what we will probably discover about Saddam Hussein?s Iraq."

The Soviet Union may have seemed less powerful( military wise) to some people after it collapsed, but not to most people who had studied its capabilities extensively.

This would make for an interesting article with some great parallels if the assertions made in each case were accurate. But because they are not, the whole article falls flat.

But, I still agree with Mr. Zakaria in several other area's and he is a good writer.

 

[STING2]

"Richard Butler in the article above clearly points out two things. The first is that he believes that Iraq had the illegal weapons that he calls "quantity number 1". What he finds troublesome is the pack of lies that was used to sell this war which he calls "quantity number 2"."

"Looking at the Newsweek article and the transcript of Butler's conversation, it is very clear that we have people surrounding the President that have a history of distorting the truth and that they use fear to manipulate the American public."



First, Quantity number 1 is the primary basis for the Bush administrations justification for war against Iraq. It is not yet Known whether quantity 2, which was simply supportive or indicative, information, is in fact true or not. In light of the circumstances, its important such information be put out there and not fall under the table.

No one in the administration has been found to have lied about anything. Its interesting to see that there are some that are willing to give SADDAM more benefit of the doubt than people working hard to insure the USA's security.


The President has perhaps the best National Security team ever assembled in history. Many of them have had a key role in shaping and building today's US armed forces. They are not naive in their estimates of the threat the USA faces around the world. They simply recognize the threat and don't try to sweep it under a rug like so many have done in the past. They also would NEVER leave the men and women of the USA military poorly equiped, trained, and payed, unlike some of their colleages on the left side of the isle.

 

[BVS]

Sting2, I appreciate you answering my question about seeking nuclear weapons. But your answers and arguments are still very speculative and assuming. Ok the report of 1998 said many things that backed up your argument. But so many things can happen in 4 years(2002 is when talk began about attacking, to my knowledge). They could have halted all production and still held onto what they had, they could have continued production, or they could have destroyed all WMDs. We don't know! That is my point. And with your interpretation of the resolutions it wasn't our responsibility to prove they didn't. That's fine, but Bush came out repeatingly saying we have intelligence and we know they do exist, and this wasn't the truth. Unless they have physical truth then I will not buy a word of what Bush claimed he knew. We would have hard physical evidence of WMDs before they ever became a threat to national security. He said they have evidence than I want evidence produced. You can't claim they buried them that quickly without our intelligence finding out. If he would have used your argument that the US did not have to prove the existence of WMD, then so be it. But he didn't, he went on to claim they had intelligence and knowlege and so far none of this has been proven.

Prove one thing that the President lied about!

Do you really believe Saddam when he says he destroyed his WMD during the years from 1998-2002? Are you willing to simply take his word for it?

I'm not taking either one of their word for truth. I happen to think there is a lot of gray in this matter. But the sad thing is no one's proven Saddam's word to be false(and this is by no means sympathizing with him).

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,

When President Bush refers to "evidence" he is primarily refering to the UN report from 1998. Saddam had a perfect opportunity to either turn the weapons over or show the remains of their destruction.

Its actually impossible to take SADDAM on his word because if he did in fact destroy the WMD, he would have the means to show the remains of such destruction. IF Saddam kept the WMD intact, then he could of handed it over. Saddam did neither. Those were the only two possibilities. Thats one of the reason why the USA and other member states were authorized in going to war.

Again, the majority of Bush's intelligence rested on the 1998 UN inspectors report. That is what he is refering to in the majority of the statements above. Thats a fact.

The words below are not mine, but George Bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell:

"It is not incumbent upon the USA to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction".




"But the sad thing is no one's proven Saddam's word to be false(and this is by no means sympathizing with him)."

That does not matter. His failure to cooperate on the matter was a violation, a serious material breech, and an unbridgable obstacle to finding the TRUTH, whatever the truth might be. Bush has done what is needed to indeed find out what that truth is by removing that obstacle from power. Whatever the truth finally becomes, the #1 goal of insuring Saddam Husseins regime was disarmed has been achieved. Saddam Husseins regime no longer exists.

 

[BVS]

When President Bush refers to "evidence" he is primarily refering to the UN report from 1998. Saddam had a perfect opportunity to either turn the weapons over or show the remains of their destruction.

If I were to write a paper in school about a current affair today and my last source was in 1998, I would fail. Bush mislead the American public into thinking they had knowledge that this was going on as we speak and the truth was he didn't. We don't know what happen. I'm just stating that Bush should have been honest in saying he didn't either, but he chose not to.