|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
...... Before Hussein was removed, can there be any doubt that he was vehemently anti-western and intent on dominating the region militarily? Can there be any doubt that if and when he took over the region - even if it was by military proxy - that the world over would be that much more unstable? Can you imagine how China and India would feel with Sadaam Hussein as ruler of the Middle East? Or at minimum, continuing to destabilize the region through hostility? ..... Hopefully, America will have fewer enemies in the future. Wouldn't it be beautiful if we can put Iraq back together? What an inspiration...just what the world could use right?
.....Why are people so sensitive about discussing religious extremism? Are you willing to at least acknowledge that there is a problem with religious extremism in this part of the world? I've said it here many times, there is a combination of over-reliance on oil, no religious separation in politics, and the wrong kinds of govermental systems that is primarily to blame for fostering the type of environment that caused 9/11. Iraq was of that environment. Why would you say "War on Islam" instead of War on Extremism and Terrorism? Or is the world actually devoid of this thing called 'terrorism'? Have I fallen into an alternate universe again?
"He was..."
Man, I think you're just arguing to argue now. Not a blip on the radar? A true friend and trusted ally of the West was he?
Am I on the wrong planet again?
|
powerclown, you might us well be trying to get us to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, or in santa claus.....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Humint is of critical importance I agree. Allies are important too. The biggest problem facing the middle east isn't the west, it's the middle east. I think that solving internal domestic issues there should be the #1 priority. They need to get their house in order first and foremost. Religious extremism is a by-product of a failed state. Removing Hussein was a positive step in addressing the issue of failed states as breeding grounds for religious extremism......
|
There was no logic to a strategy of invading Iraq, for your stated reasons, powerclown, the M.E. country with the most secular regime....the regime that had the greatest incentive and a proven trackrecord of "discouraging" the Iranian/Iraqi, fundamentalist Islamic connection and associated ambitions....in early 2003, or back in 1920, where a study of history would have yielded the Churchill/Bell strategy of sunni rule of Iraq, precisely because of the lack of religious influence and ambitions for control of sunni secular politics:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...401355_pf.html
....Bell, a singular, gentle-born woman who had already established a name through Arab travels and scholarly writings rivaling those of any man of her time, arrived soon after. She stayed on for the rest of her life, as Oriental secretary to British governments, carving out and creating modern-day Iraq as much as any single person.
Bell sketched the boundaries of Iraq on tracing paper after careful consultation with Iraqi tribes, consideration of Britain's need for oil and her own idiosyncratic geopolitical beliefs.
"The truth is I'm becoming a Sunni myself; you know where you are with them, they are staunch and they are guided, according to their lights, by reason; <b>whereas with the Shi'ahs, however well intentioned they may be, at any moment some ignorant fanatic of an alim may tell them that by the order of God and himself they are to think differently," she wrote home.</b>
She and her allies gave the monarchy to the minority Sunnis, denied independence to the Kurds in order to keep northern oil fields for Britain and withheld from the Shiite majority the democracy of which she thought them incapable.
<b>"The object of every government here has always been to keep the Shi'ah divines from taking charge of public affairs," Bell wrote......</b>
.......Bell's camp ensured that Britain and its military would have say over Iraq's government and oil for decades to come. London installed a foreign Sunni sheik, Faisal, as Iraq's king in a rigged plebiscite with a Hussein-style, 96 percent yes vote....
|
I have quotes from DIA (March, 2002) and CIA (March, 2001) directors, Powell,(Feb. thru May, 2001) Rice,(July, 2001) and Cheney,(5 days after 9/11 attacks) that are consistent in the opinion that Saddam was "bottled up", was "no threat to his neighbors", "had not rebuilt his military", and UN sanctions and "no fly zones" "are working" to keep him from rebuilding pre-1991 WMD capabilities.
<b>Can you share how you "know" what you know? What date did the Bush admin's and the DIA/CIA threat assessment of Saddam's WMD capabilities change, and what was discovered to support the new alarmist communications of Cheney, and then Bush, et al, in view of the consistent contrary determinations, as recently as on March 19, 2002, by DIA director, Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson ?:</b>
Quote:
http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/secur...lson_2002.html
.....Indeed, years of UN sanctions, embargoes, and inspections, combined with US and Coalition military actions, have significantly degraded Iraq's military capabilities. Saddam's military forces are much smaller and weaker than those he had in 1991. Manpower and equipment shortages, a problematic logistics system, and fragile military morale remain major shortcomings. Saddam's paranoia and lack of trust - and related oppression and mistreatment - extend to the military, and are a drain on military effectiveness.........
|
powerclown, let's hop into Professor Peabody's "wayback machine" and compare the points in your post with what was reported between Feb., 2001, through 2006:
(I think that it is important to note that then French foreign minister, and now prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, was not persuaded by Powell's extensive presentation to the UN, shortly before this excerpted Villepin UN speech, that Zaraqawi, Ansar al-Islam, and the "poison camp" at Khurmal were evidence of links between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...in.transcript/
Villepin: 'War is acknowledgment of failure'
Sunday, March 9, 2003 Posted: 12:52 AM EST (0552 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, spoke to the United Nations Security Council on Friday. This is a transcript of his remarks.
....What conclusions can we draw? That Iraq, according to the very terms used by the inspectors, represents less of a danger to the world than it did in 1991, that we can achieve our objective of effectively disarming that country. Let us keep the pressure on Baghdad......
....We understand the profound sense of insecurity with which the American people have been living since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The entire world shared the sorrow of New York and of America struck in the heart. And I say this in the name of our friendship for the American people, in the name of our common values: freedom, justice, tolerance.
<b>But there is nothing today to indicate a link between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda.</b> And will the world be a safer place after a military intervention in Iraq? I want to tell you what my country's conviction is: It will not. .....
|
Former Senate Intel. Committee chair, Sen. Pat Roberts, worked to block the release of confirmation of what Villepin knew about Powell's presentation, 3-1/2 years before:
Quote:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/08/D8K0PV600.html
By JIM ABRAMS, AP Writer Fri Sep 8, 12:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON - There's no evidence
Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on
Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts
President Bush's justification for going to war.....
.....It discloses for the first time an October 2005
CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."......
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Despite Obstacles to War, White House Forges Ahead
Administration Unfazed by Iraq's Pledge to Destroy Missiles, Turkish Parliament's Rejection of Use of Bases
By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 2, 2003; Page A18
The Bush administration brushed off two setbacks to its war plans yesterday, calling Iraq's destruction of Al Samoud-2 missiles a "predictable" attempt to distract attention from Baghdad's failure to disarm, and saying it would seek "clarification" of Turkish parliamentary rejection of U.S. troop deployment there.....
..... As it heads into what senior U.S. officials said are likely to be the final two weeks of U.N. deliberations, the administration has made increasingly clear that the outcome of that debate is ultimately immaterial to its plans.
Even as it sent senior envoys around the world to twist the arms of recalcitrant council members -- particularly the half-dozen undecided governments it refers to as the "U-6" -- the administration in recent days has expanded both its rationale for war and on-the-ground activities indicating the conflict has already begun. ......
..... Wolfowitz also estimated the U.S. cost of Iraqi "containment" during 12 years of U.N. sanctions, weapons inspections and continued U.S. air patrols over the country at "slightly over $30 billion," but he said the price had been "far more than money." Sustained U.S. bombing of Iraq over those years, and the stationing of U.S. forces "in the holy land of Saudi Arabia," were "part of the containment policy that has been Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device, even more than the other grievances he cites," Wolfowitz said.
Implying that a takeover in Iraq would eliminate the need for U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, and thus reduce the appeal of terrorist groups for new members, Wolfowitz said: "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years to continue helping recruit terrorists."
U.S. patrols over southern Iraq, flying from Saudi bases, are authorized to shoot at Iraqi defenses that threaten them, and bombing of Iraq's air defense system has greatly increased in recent months. Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday that the planes were now also authorized to attack surface-to-surface missile batteries deployed on Iraqi territory that do not threaten U.S. aircraft.
Four of the Iraqi sites were hit last week, and Myers said they had been targeted because they were within range of some of the tens of thousands of U.S. ground forces now deployed across the Iraqi border in northern Kuwait as part of an invasion force. "They become a threat to our forces, absolutely, because they are new deployments," Myers said.
Such attacks, along with expanded U.S. justifications for war, sometimes make negotiations difficult at the United Nations. For domestic consumption, the administration has concentrated on what it has described as a nexus between Hussein and international terrorist groups. Unless Hussein is removed, the administration has warned, he might turn over to terrorists -- like those who attacked on Sept. 11, 2001 -- the very weapons of mass destruction for which U.N. inspectors are searching. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Friday that the administration's goal was both "disarmament and regime change."
But at the Security Council, where many countries are skeptical that such a nexus exists and leery of internationally authorized "regime change," the focus is solely on the need for U.N.-ordered disarmament. Many do not see the situation in the same urgent terms as the administration and feel that gradual progress, as opposed to the "full and immediate" disarmament they have demanded, should be enough to delay war.
Passage of a resolution in the 15-member council requires nine votes and no vetoes, and the council is currently split in three directions. Among the five permanent members with veto power, the United States and Britain are co-sponsoring the new resolution declaring that Iraq has failed to meet its disarmament obligations, a conclusion they have said would authorize disarmament by force. Among the nonpermanent members, Spain and Bulgaria support the U.S. position.
Although the administration has long said it does not need a new resolution to go to war, it has bowed to the wishes of Britain and Spain, which see new U.N. approval as a way to assuage overwhelming antiwar opinion in their countries. Both countries are willing to allow council negotiations to continue for at least another month, if necessary, to reach agreement. But U.S. officials have said they anticipate bringing the matter to a vote within a week after chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix delivers his latest report next Friday. If they have not amassed the necessary votes by then, officials have indicated they will skip a vote and move directly to war.
Permanent members France and Russia, who oppose the measure along with China, have threatened a veto. Instead of a war resolution, they propose strengthening inspections and setting more precise goals for Iraq, without setting a deadline for compliance. Nonpermanent members Germany and Syria agree. .....
|
Quote:
http://web.archive.org/web/200402121...m/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
.... the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. <h3>And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.</h3> So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.......
|
Quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html
CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
Rice Discusses Role of U.S. Military Overseas; Gephardt, Watts Address Bush Agenda; Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research Ethical?
Aired July 29, 2001 - 12:00 ET
....GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we're going to keep the pressure on Iraq, the no-fly zone strategy is still in place. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is still a menace and a problem, and the United States and our allies must put the pressure on him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
<b>But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that.......</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20010916.html
Camp David, Maryland
September 16, 2001
The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert
....MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists, and there's a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. <b>Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point</b>, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.
MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. .....
|
Quote:
THE O'REILLY FACTOR
Transcript: Dr. Condoleezza Rice
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, September 24, 2003.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. No "Talking Points Memo" this evening so we can get right to our top story.
The Bush administration under some pressure to stabilize the Iraq situation. With us now, Dr. Condoleezza Rice (search), national security adviser to President Bush. Dr. Rice was a chief (UNINTELLIGIBLE) officer at Stanford University prior to working at the White House. She's also the author of three books on foreign policy.
Last March, I stuck up for you guys. After Colin Powell (search) went to the United Nations -- and I said on "Good Morning America" that I believed that we were right to go to war, the United States, based upon weapons of mass destruction and the danger that Saddam posed. And I also said to "Good Morning America" if the weapons found to be bogus, I'd have to apologize for my stance.
<b>Do I have to apologize?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: No, Bill, you don't have to apologize.</b> We went to war -- the president has led (ph) the people to war because this is a dangerous tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction before. This administrations, every intelligence service in the world, the United Nations knew that he had those weapons. He wouldn't account for them. He had used them before.
We're now in a process to find out precisely what happened with weapons of mass destruction, but the world is a much better place because Saddam Hussein (search) is gone. Because allowing that threat to stand would not have been good for (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
O'REILLY: But are we going to find out what happened to the weapons of mass destruction?
<b>RICE: Well, David Kay is a well respected former weapons inspector. The president told David Kay, he said, "David, I want you to go out and I want you to put together the coherent picture. I'm not going to pressure you for when it gets finished."
David Kay has miles of documents to go through. He has hundreds of people to interview. We're getting more and more tips by the way from Iraqis about this program, about what happened here. He's getting physical evidence.
He's going to put together the picture, and we will know precisely what became of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But I can tell you that going into this war, the president knew that this man was a threat. He knew that his weapons of mass destruction and the programs were a threat. And, yes, we did the right thing.</b>
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: All right. But on March 30, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, said this, he said, "We know where the WMDs are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." That turned out to be a mistake.
RICE: Well, they're still searching. The areas around Tikrit and Baghdad happens to be one of the most difficult areas, of course. It's in the Sunni triangle (UNINTELLIGIBLE).....
Quote:
http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/ge....jsp?pageID=44
RECENTLY ON THE RADIO FACTOR INSIDER
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
HOUR 1:
Bill, WMD and GMA
Bill will discuss his appearance Monday on ABC's Good Morning, America.
On the show, ABC's Charles Gibson played excerpts from Bill's interview on GMA back on March 18, 2003, when Bill said:
<i>"Here's the bottom line on this for every American and everybody in the world, nobody knows for sure, all right? We don't know what he has. We think he has 8,500 liters of anthrax. But let's see. But there's a doubt on both sides. <b>And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?</b> But I'm giving my government the benefit of the doubt..."</i>
<b>Monday, Bill told Gibson, "I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this... What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?"
Bill said he was "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now," since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction.</b>
Bill said he doubts President Bush intentionally lied - the President's error was in trusting information provided by the CIA.
As for CIA Director George Tenet, Bill told Gibson, "I don't know why Tenet still has his job.".....
|
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/in...rtner=USERLAND
Hussein Warned Iraqis to Beware Outside Fighters, Document Says
By JAMES RISEN
Published: January 14, 2004
<b>WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle American troops, according to a document found with the former Iraqi leader when he was captured, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.
The document appears to be a directive, written after he lost power, from Mr. Hussein to leaders of the Iraqi resistance, counseling caution against getting too close to Islamic jihadists and other foreign Arabs coming into occupied Iraq, according to American officials.
It provides a second piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Mr. Hussein's government and terrorists from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Mr. Hussein.</b>
Officials said Mr. Hussein apparently believed that the foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, <b>he wanted his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies with the jihadists, officials familiar with the document said.
A new, classified intelligence report circulating within the United States government describes the document and its contents, according to administration officials who asked not to be identified. The officials said they had no evidence that the document found with Mr. Hussein was a fabrication.</b>
The role of foreign Arab fighters in the Iraqi resistance to the American-led occupation has been a source of debate within the American government ever since the fall of Baghdad in April. Initially, American analysts feared that thousands of fighters would flood into Iraq, seeking an Islamic jihad in much the same way an earlier generation of Arabs traveled to Afghanistan in the 1980's to fight the Soviet occupation.
<b>Military and intelligence officials now believe that the number of foreign fighters who have entered Iraq is relatively small.</b> American military units posted along the border to screen against such an influx have reported that they have seen few signs of foreign fighters trying to cross the border.
In December, American military officials in Iraq estimated that foreign fighters accounted for no more than 10 percent of the insurgency, and some officials now believe that even that figure may be too high. Only 200 to 300 people holding non-Iraqi passports are being detained in Iraq by American forces, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a military spokesman, told reporters in Baghdad in December.....
|
I'm making a sincere and thorough effort to demonstrate, and document, why I believe that the Bush administration had no basis for pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, for the justifications that you maintain are valid and legal. Kindly respond with some references that explain what triggered the "About Face", that changed the threat that Saddam's Iraq posed to the US, considering the comments of Powell, Rice, and DIA chief Thomas R. Wilson, in 2001, before 9/11, and Cheney's 9/16/01 statment that we had Saddam Hussein, "bottled up".
I would think that you would perceive a motivation to defend your justification for the invasion, since the record strongly indicates that Saddam posed no threat, in Cheney's own opinion, as late as on 9/16/01, Powell said that the sanctions against Iraq had been reformed to keep Saddam from obtaining WMD, Duelfer reported that there was no program to obtain or rebuild the WMD capability, and ten days before the invasion, the WMD inspection program was back in place in Iraq, and the French Foreign Minister, Villepin, made a speech before the UN, stating that:
Quote:
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/villepin.transcript/">Villepin: 'War is acknowledgment of failure'</a>
.....And what have the inspectors told us? That for a month Iraq has been actively cooperating with them, that substantial progress has been made in the area of ballistics with the progressive destruction of al-Samoud II missiles and their equipment, that new prospects are opening up with the recent question of several scientists. Significant evidence of real disarmament has now been observed, and that is indeed the key to Resolution 1441.
Therefore, I would like solemnly to address a question to this body, and it's the very same question being asked by people all over the world. Why should we now engage in war with Iraq? And I would also like to ask, why smash the instruments that have just proven their effectiveness? Why choose division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction? Why should we wish to proceed by force at any price when we can succeed peacefully?
War is always an acknowledgment of failure. Let us not resign ourselves to the irreparable. Before making our choice, let us weigh the consequences. Let us measure the effects of our decision. And it's clear to all in Iraq, we are resolutely moving toward completely eliminating programs of weapons of mass destruction. The method that we have chosen worked. ........
|
I'm documenting that Powell said he had worked to "reform" the sanctions, and right after the 9/11 attacks, Cheney said that Saddam was "bottled up". Rice had the same opinion, six weeks before 9/11. When the US invaded Iraq, Villepin had said in his speech, ten days before that the WMD inspectors were back in Iraq, and making serious progress for "a month". I will credit the Bush policy of assembling a threat of use of military force, under the resolution of the UN, for restoring the inspections teams that "were making progress".
<b>The scenario to keep Saddam from restarting WMD development or obtaining and holding WMD, was in place, by all accounts, before Bush ordered the military invasion. To order invasion, in spite of that, is a war crime, similar to shooting a disarmed "suspect". Your stance IMO, reduced to unsubstantiated and it follows...unjustified, pre-emptive war.....is one that both Bush and Cheney failed to justify, in new attempts in the last few days, probably because of the huge, contrary body of evidence that hangs over this. A strong case, IMO, can also be made that the invasion of Iraq was not justified to the point that arguments that it was an illegal war of aggression, must be respected, and without any more valid justification than Bush and Cheney can now come up with, may end up prevailing.</b>
Quote:
http://davidcorn.com/
September 12, 2006
For Bush, a 9/11 Anniversary Changes Nothing:
<i>I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.</i>
But what is the president's evidence for that? As our book notes, the final report of the Iraq Survey Group - the CIA-Defense Department unit that searched for WMDs in Iraq - concluded that Saddam's WMD capability "was essentially destroyed in 1991" and Saddam had no "plan for the revival of WMD." <b>The book also quotes little-noticed congressional testimony that Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson, then head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, gave in March 2002.</b> He noted that Iraq was not among the most pressing "near-term concerns" to U.S. interests and that as a military danger Iraq was "smaller and weaker" than during the Persian Gulf War. Wilson testified that Saddam possessed only "residual" amounts of weapons of mass destruction, not a growing arsenal. In an interview for the book, he told us, <b>"I didn't really think [Saddam and Iraq] were an immediate threat on WMD."</b>
Quote:
http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/secur...lson_2002.html
Global Threats and Challenges
Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson
Director, Defense Intelligence Agency
Statement for the Record
Senate Armed Services Committee
19 March 2002
......Iraq
Saddam's goals remain to reassert his rule over the Kurds in northern Iraq, undermine all UN restrictions on his military capabilities, and make Iraq the predominant military and economic power in the Persian Gulf and the Arab world. The on-going UN sanctions and US military presence continue to be the keys to restraining Saddam's ambitions. Indeed, years of UN sanctions, embargoes, and inspections, combined with US and Coalition military actions, have significantly degraded Iraq's military capabilities. Saddam's military forces are much smaller and weaker than those he had in 1991. Manpower and equipment shortages, a problematic logistics system, and fragile military morale remain major shortcomings. Saddam's paranoia and lack of trust - and related oppression and mistreatment - extend to the military, and are a drain on military effectiveness....
.....Iraq retains a residual level of WMD and missile capabilities. The lack of intrusive inspection and disarmament mechanisms permits Baghdad to enhance these programs........
|
<b>...and from David Corn's Sept. 11, 2006 entry on davidcorn.com, again, reacting to Cheney's statements to Tim Russert, on Sept. 10, 2006:</b>
Appearing on Meet the Press on Sunday, Cheney encountered a decent grilling from host Tim Russert, who pressed him on how Cheney and George W. Bush had justified the war in Iraq. "Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were described, would you still have gone into Iraq?" Russert asked. Yes, indeed, Cheney said, hewing to the company line. And he pointed to what appeared to be evidence that supported that no-regrets stance:
Look at the Duelfer Report and what it said. No stockpiles, but they also said he has the capability. He'd done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91. All of this is true, said by Duelfer, facts.
Well, let's look at the report of Charles Duelfer who headed up the Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for searching for WMDs after the invasion. (Duelfer took the job following David Kay's resignation in late 2003.) It just so happens that in our new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?link_code=ur2&tag=davidcorncom-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&location=%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0307346811%2Fsr%3D8-1%2Fqid%3D1156557686%2Fref%3Dsr_1_1%3Fie%3DUTF8">Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War</a>, Michael Isikoff and I quote from that report, and it noted that Saddam's WMD capability was essentially destroyed in 1991.
That is the opposite of what Cheney told Russert the report said. Cheney went on to remark,
Think where we'd be if [Saddam] was still there...We also would have a situation where he would have resumed his WMD programs.
<h3>Yet Duelfer reported that at the time of the invasion, Saddam had no plan for the revival of WMD.</h3>
Cheney even justified the invasion of Iraq by citing an allegation that was just debunked in a Senate intelligence committee report released on Friday. Claiming there was a significant relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, he cited the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who was recently killed in Iraq). After the US attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Cheney said, Zarqawi
fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we launched into Iraq.
The implication here is that Baghdad sanctioned the terrorist activity of Zarqawi, a supposed al Qaeda associate. But the Senate intelligence committee report--released by a Republican-run panel--noted that prior to the invasion of Iraq Zarqawi and his network were not part of al Qaeda. (That merging came after the invasion.) More important, the report cites CIA reports (based on captured documents and interrogations) that say that Baghdad was not protecting or assisting Zarqawi when he was in Iraq. In fact, Iraqi intelligence in the spring of 2002 had formed a "special committee" to locate and capture him--but failed to find the terrorist. A 2005 CIA report concluded that prior to the Iraq war,
the [Saddam] regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.
So why is Cheney still holding up Zarqawi as evidence that Baghdad was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden? If he knows something the CIA does not, perhaps he should inform the agency.
During the Meet the Press interview, Cheney blamed the CIA for his and Bush's prewar assertions that Iraq posed a WMD threat. That's what the intelligence said, Cheney insisted. Our book shows that this explanation (or, defense) is a dodge. There were dissents within the intelligence community on key aspects of the WMD argument for war--especially the charge that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Cheney dwelled on that frightening possibility before the war, repeatedly declaring that the US government knew for sure that Iraq had revved up its nuclear program. Yet there was only one strong piece of evidence for this claim--that Iraq had purchased tens of thousands of aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge that would produce enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. And that piece of evidence was hotly contested within the intelligence community.
One CIA analyst (whom we name for the first time in Hubris) was fiercely pushing the tube case. Yet practically every other top nuclear expert in the US government (including the centrifuge specialists at the Department of Energy) disagreed. This dispute was even mentioned in The Washington Post in September 2002. But neither Cheney nor Bush (nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rce) took an interest in this important argument. Instead, they kept insisting the tube purchases were proof Saddam was building a bomb. They were wrong. And the nuclear scientists at the Department of Energy (again, as our book notes) were ordered not to say anything publicly about the tubes.
This is but one example of how the Bush White House rigged the case for war by selectively embracing (without reviewing) convenient pieces of iffy intelligence and then presenting them to the public as hard-and-fast proof. But Cheney is right--to a limited extent. The CIA did provide the White House with intelligence that was wrong (which the White House then used irresponsibly). The new Senate intelligence report, though, shows that this was not what happened regarding one crucial part of the Bush-Cheney argument for war: that al Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots.
Before the war, Bush said that Saddam "was dealing" with al Qaeda. He even charged that Saddam had "financed" al Qaeda. The Senate intelligence report notes clearly that the prewar intelligence on this critical issue said no such thing.
The report quotes a CIA review of the prewar intelligence: "The data reveal few indications of an established relationship between al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein's regime." The lead Defense Intelligence Analyst on this issue told the Senate intelligence committee that "there was no partnership between the two organizations." And post-invasion debriefings of former Iraqi regime officials indicated that Saddam had no interest in working with al Qaeda and had refused to meet with an al Qaeda emissary in 1998.
The report also augments the section in our book on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured al Qaeda commander who was taken by the CIA to Egypt where he was roughly--perhaps brutally--interrogated and claimed that Iraq had provided chemical weapons training to al Qaeda. Though there were questions about al-Libi's veracity from the start, Secretary of State Colin Powell used al-Libi's claims in his famous UN speech to argue that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were partners in evil--that there was a "sinister nexus" between the two. Al-Libi later recanted, and the CIA withdrew all the intelligence based on his claims. In other words, the Bush administration had hyped flimsy intelligence to depict Saddam and bin Laden as WMD-sharing allies.
The Senate intelligence report concluded that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."
What did Cheney tell Russert? Saddam, he insisted, "had a relationship with al Qaeda." When Russert pointed out that the intelligence committee "said that there was no relationship," Cheney interrupted and commented, "I haven't had a chance to read it."...
|
Powell, Rice, Cheney, Tenet, and Adm. Wilson were on record, contradicting the later case made for "war".
Quote:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat
SENATOR BENNETT: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?
SECRETARY POWELL: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.
So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again.
When we came into office on the 20th of January, the whole sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were bailing out on it. We lost the consensus for this kind of regime because the Iraqi regime had successfully painted us as the ones causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, when it was the regime that was causing the suffering. They had more than enough money; they just weren't spending it in the proper way. And we were getting the blame for it. So reconfiguring the sanctions, I think, helps us and continues to contain the Iraqi regime.
At the preceding link and here:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/034...2,47837,6.html
Quote:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_03/alia/a1030612.htm
Secretary of State Colin Powell said the modified Iraq sanctions policy will prevent Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from acquiring weapons of mass destruction but allow Iraqi civilians to obtain needed consumer goods.
"We will keep them from developing their military capability again, just the way we have for the last ten years, but we will not be the ones to blame because the Iraqi people, it is claimed, are not getting what they need to take care of their children or to take care of their needs," Powell said at a press conference with Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh in Washington March 6.[2001]
|
Quote:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_03/alia/a1030802.htm
08 March 2001
Text: Powell Explains Changes in Iraq Sanctions Policy
Secretary of State Colin Powell says the sanctions regime that was put in place to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction needs shoring up.
Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee March 8 that the United Nations sanctions regime has kept Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in check. "Even though we know he is working on weapons of mass destruction, we know he has things squirreled away, at the same time we have not seen that capacity emerge to present a full fledged threat to us," he said.
However, Powell said that when he took office five and a half weeks ago "I discovered that we had an Iraq policy that was in disarray, and the sanctions part of that policy was not just in disarray; it was falling apart."....
.......It became clear, he said, that the sanctions had to be modified in order to "eliminate those items in the sanctions regime that really were of civilian use and benefited people, and focus [sanctions] exclusively on weapons of mass destruction and items that could be directed toward the development of weapons of destruction."
Powell said he found support for this modification from Arab allies, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and many NATO colleagues. "And so we are continuing down this line that says let's see if there is a better way to use these sanctions to go after weapons of mass destruction and take away the argument we have given him that we are somehow hurting the Iraqi people. He is hurting the Iraqi people, not us."
To end the sanctions, Powell said, Iraq must permit the U.N. inspection teams to return to their work.....
|
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2001/2940.htm
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC
May 17, 2001
At his May 17 briefing at the State Department in Washington, Boucher said the U.S. government expects a draft resolution on revising the sanctions on Iraq to be circulated at the U.N. Security Council next week. He said the British proposal currently circulating at the U.N. for modifying the sanctions tracks with the U.S. position.
"We are working towards what will be a significant change in our approach to Iraq in the United Nations," Boucher said. "The focus is on strengthening controls to prevent Iraq from rebuilding military capability and weapons of mass destruction while facilitating a broader flow of goods to the civilian population of Iraq."
|
Quote:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=us
Statement by the Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet
for the Senate Armed Services Committee
7 March 2001
The Worldwide Threat in 2001: National Security in a Changing World
......IRAQ
In Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to
his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam’s confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam’s multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility....
.....There are still constraints on Saddam’s power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq’s borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies — a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability. Despite these problems, we are likely to see greater assertiveness
— largely on the diplomatic front—over the next year....
....Our most serious concern with Saddam Hussein must be the likelihood that
he will seek a renewed WMD capability both for credibility and because every other strong regime in the region either has it or is pursuing it. For example, the Iraqis have rebuilt key portions of their chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use.....
|
|
Finally, they thought it necessary to legislate a CYA for anticipated later war crimes investigations:
Quote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...q/15246142.htm
Posted on Thu, Aug. 10, 2006
<b>Retroactive war crime protection drafted</b>
PETE YOST
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.
The move by the administration is the latest effort to deal with treatment of those taken into custody in the war on terror.
At issue are interrogations carried out by the CIA, and the degree to which harsh tactics such as water-boarding were authorized by administration officials. A separate law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, applies to the military.
The Washington Post first reported on the War Crimes Act amendments Wednesday.
One section of the draft would outlaw torture and inhuman or cruel treatment, but it does not contain prohibitions from Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." A copy of the section of the draft was obtained by The Associated Press.
The White House, without elaboration, said in a statement that the bill "will apply to any conduct by any U.S. personnel, whether committed before or after the law is enacted."
Two attorneys said that the draft is in the revision stage but that the administration seems intent on pushing forward the draft's major points in Congress after Labor Day. The two attorneys spoke on condition of anonymity because their sources did not authorize them to release the information.
"I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous," said a third attorney, Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice....
|
|