WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

• 

  William Penwell

  Bush backtracks on Iraq's banned weapons
  By David Rennie in Washington
  (Filed: 23/06/2003)
  

  President George W Bush has retreated from predictions that banned Iraqi weapons would be found, promising only to discover the "true extent" of Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes.

  In his weekly radio address, Mr Bush stressed Saddam's record of building and concealing weapons and said "all who know the dictator's history agree" that he had previously possessed and used banned weapons.

  "The intelligence services of many nations concluded that he had illegal weapons and the regime refused to provide evidence they had been destroyed. We are determined to discover the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes, no matter how long it takes," he said.

  His comments contrast with earlier declarations. In March he said: "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."

  Senior members of the Senate confirmed yesterday that the hunt for Saddam had been galvanised by the recent capture of Abid Hamid Mahmud, the dictator's right hand man.

  Two with access to sensitive intelligence said they would not be surprised to be brought news of Saddam's death.

  Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the Pentagon was not claiming to have killed Saddam.

  Asked about newspaper reports that US forces were conducting DNA tests on human remains in a convoy that was attacked in western Iraq on Wednesday, he said: "I don't think the Pentagon has confirmed it. But with this very aggressive effort that we have been mounting, I would not be surprised."

  Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democratic vice-chairman of the panel, added: "Pat and I both hope that we've scored but we don't know that."

  Abid Hamid Mahmud has told his American captors that Saddam and his two sons, Uday and Qusay, survived air raids early in the war. Mahmud said he personally fled with the sons to Syria, leaving Saddam's side, but they were forced to return to Iraq by Syrian authorities.

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$KNYZJFSHYOV03QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/06/23/wmd23.xml/
• 

  Jayson

  <yawn>
• 

  William Penwell

  Last word I will say on the subject, read it and weep. Who is paying for all this??? You the American tax payer.

  http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/deanforamerica_fiscal.pdf?docID=105&AddInterest=1026
• 

  Realist

  dubla,
  

  colon powell referred to the MI6 report in his speech to the UN. that this report did not come from the CIA doesn't make it any better!!! his whole case was based on lies.

  as to the uranium....how could you possibly have missed that?
  

  Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.

  From David Ensor
  CNN Washington Bureau
  Friday, March 14, 2003 Posted: 10:43 PM EST (0343 GMT)

  WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

  The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.

  U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.

  "I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.

  Responding to questions about the documents from lawmakers, Powell said, "It was provided in good faith to the inspectors and our agency received it in good faith, not participating ... in any way in any falsification activities."

  "It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.

  "We don't believe that all the issues surrounding nuclear weapons have been resolved [in Iraq]," he said.

  How were forgeries missed?

  But the discovery raises questions such as why the apparent forgeries were given to inspectors and why U.S. and British intelligence agents did not recognize that they were not authentic.

  Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not Mamadou's.

  Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said.

  "The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.

  Close said the CIA should have known better.

  "They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."

  A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received with the comment, " 'We don't know the provenance of this information, but here it is.' "

  If a mistake was made, a U.S. official suggested, it was more likely due to incompetence not malice.

  "That's a convenient explanation, but it doesn't satisfy me," Close said. "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."

  Who made the forgeries?

  But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?

  Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.

  Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

  President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union address on January 28.

  "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said.

  U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from another African country. But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgable U.S. official said that there was not much to that evidence either.
• 

  Realist

  william,

  Last word I will say on the subject, read it and weep. Who is paying for all this??? You the American tax payer.

  thats what i am saying all along! the average american has to pay for this BS just so that a couple of bush buddies get a little more influential and rich. sooooo saaaadd.
• 

  Realist

  fantastic article from the NY times!

  Denial and Deception

  By PAUL KRUGMAN

  olitics is full of ironies. On the White House Web site, George W. Bush's speech from Oct. 7, 2002 — in which he made the case for war with Iraq — bears the headline "Denial and Deception." Indeed.

  There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration officials deceived us into war. The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious.

  About the deception: Leaks from professional intelligence analysts, who are furious over the way their work was abused, have given us a far more complete picture of how America went to war. Thanks to reporting by my colleague Nicholas Kristof, other reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post , and a magisterial article by John Judis and Spencer Ackerman in The New Republic, we now know that top officials, including Mr. Bush, sought to convey an impression about the Iraqi threat that was not supported by actual intelligence reports.

  In particular, there was never any evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda; yet administration officials repeatedly suggested the existence of a link. Supposed evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program was thoroughly debunked by the administration's own experts; yet administration officials continued to cite that evidence and warn of Iraq's nuclear threat.

  And yet the political and media establishment is in denial, finding excuses for the administration's efforts to mislead both Congress and the public.

  For example, some commentators have suggested that Mr. Bush should be let off the hook as long as there is some interpretation of his prewar statements that is technically true. Really? We're not talking about a business dispute that hinges on the fine print of the contract; we're talking about the most solemn decision a nation can make. If Mr. Bush's speeches gave the nation a misleading impression about the case for war, close textual analysis showing that he didn't literally say what he seemed to be saying is no excuse. On the contrary, it suggests that he knew that his case couldn't stand close scrutiny.

  Consider, for example, what Mr. Bush said in his "denial and deception" speech about the supposed Saddam-Osama link: that there were "high-level contacts that go back a decade." In fact, intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and an infant Al Qaeda in the early 1990's, but found no good evidence of a continuing relationship. So Mr. Bush made what sounded like an assertion of an ongoing relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but phrased it cagily — suggesting that he or his speechwriter knew full well that his case was shaky.

  Other commentators suggest that Mr. Bush may have sincerely believed, despite the lack of evidence, that Saddam was working with Osama and developing nuclear weapons. Actually, that's unlikely: why did he use such evasive wording if he didn't know that he was improving on the truth? In any case, however, somebody was at fault. If top administration officials somehow failed to apprise Mr. Bush of intelligence reports refuting key pieces of his case against Iraq, they weren't doing their jobs. And Mr. Bush should be the first person to demand their resignations.

  So why are so many people making excuses for Mr. Bush and his officials?

  Part of the answer, of course, is raw partisanship. One important difference between our current scandal and the Watergate affair is that it's almost impossible now to imagine a Republican senator asking, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?"

  But even people who aren't partisan Republicans shy away from confronting the administration's dishonest case for war, because they don't want to face the implications.

  After all, suppose that a politician — or a journalist — admits to himself that Mr. Bush bamboozled the nation into war. Well, launching a war on false pretenses is, to say the least, a breach of trust. So if you admit to yourself that such a thing happened, you have a moral obligation to demand accountability — and to do so in the face not only of a powerful, ruthless political machine but in the face of a country not yet ready to believe that its leaders have exploited 9/11 for political gain. It's a scary prospect.

  Yet if we can't find people willing to take the risk — to face the truth and act on it — what will happen to our democracy?
• 

  dubla

  william-

  last word of blather? well, you will be missed.

  realist-

  youre attempting to get around the fact that you made a completely erroneous statement about powells report, saying that part of it had been "debunked" as a student paper. he mentioned the dossier, thats it, he didnt even show it to the u.n! none of his report came from that paper.......i dont know if you honestly believed that, or if you were simply trying to mislead the uniformed reader, but either way you could at least own up to it rather than dancing around your mistake/fabrication.

  as far as the uranium paper goes, how did i miss it? well, we all miss things along the way.....werent you the one who didnt even know there were chemical weapons iraq couldnt account for? anyhow, i cant read the whole article you provided (the beginning is chopped), so maybe im missing something, but it looks to me like that forgery didnt stem from the cia, but rather was passed through without being caught....quite a bit different than the u.k. actually using a student paper as part of a dossier. even the article you gave states that the forgery most likely couldnt have come from the u.s., u.k., or isreal.

  while we are talking "evidence" again, ill take this opportunity to repeat that none of my personal beliefs about iraq have come from any of the latest "evidence" thats been provided. if our intelligence on iraq was faulty, it only means that the intelligence agencies of every major country in the world also failed, as they all believed iraq possessed wmd. this is a fact that ive yet to hear a rebuttal on........the countries in the coalition were the ones willing to act, but far from the only ones that believed saddam had chemical and bioweapons.

  aa
• 

  Realist

  dubla,

  you are cute...you think you can get around the issue by complaining about semantics?

  powell presented lies and knew about it. that is a fact. whether he just praised the british report or used statements from the report is of no relevance!

  werent you the one who didnt even know there were chemical weapons iraq couldnt account for?

  quod erat demonstrandum! i have seen 5 year old numbers. nothing recent.

  if our intelligence on iraq was faulty, it only means that the intelligence agencies of every major country in the world also failed, as they all believed iraq possessed wmd.

  if you wouldn't refuse to read critical articles you would know by now that the CIA had the correct info! it was rumsfeld and others that forced the CIA to present a biased view on the issue to the senate and the public.

  PS: hope the above article is readable now.
• 

  dubla

  realist-

  you are cute...you think you can get around the issue by complaining about semantics?

  how is this about semantics? show me which part of his report was "debunked" a day later? are you now saying that his one sentence about the british dossier was what was "debunked"? lol, okay, i can accept that.

  powell presented lies and knew about it. that is a fact.

  thats not a fact, thats your opinion.....you obviously have a hard time telling the difference.

  quod erat demonstrandum! i have seen 5 year old numbers. nothing recent.

  gee, i wonder why that is? maybe because the weapons inspectors werent allowed in iraq for the last five years!?! come on realist, lets get real here. what other numbers could we possibly have, other than the last known numbers when the inspectors were ousted from the country?? id love to hear your answer on that one.

  if you wouldn't refuse to read critical articles you would know by now that the CIA had the correct info! it was rumsfeld and others that forced the CIA to present a biased view on the issue to the senate and the public.

  do you or do you not think that every major country in the world believed iraq had wmds? it was never a question, or there wouldnt have been sanctions! you can go on and on about rumsfeld, etc, but youre not addressing my point.

  PS: hope the above article is readable now.

  yes it is....and the extra little bit didnt change anything. the article clearly states that the forgery most likely couldnt have come from the u.s.

  aa
• 

  Realist

  dubla,

  show me which part of his report was "debunked" a day later?

  his claim about the uranium!

  thats not a fact, thats your opinion

  it is a fact! TV reports in europe as well as a NYtimes article (i posted it somewhere here) talked about internal info according to which powell threw out half of the trash he presented to the UN because it was so poorly fabricated that he didn't want to be associated with it!

  gee, i wonder why that is?

  the only numbers i got was the stuff you posted a while back. i will look up the date on these UN documents.

  what other numbers could we possibly have, other than the last known numbers when the inspectors were ousted from the country??

  perhaps numbers from this year???

  the article clearly states that the forgery most likely couldnt have come from the u.s.

  is that an excuse??? the US was in possession of this report for several month and the CIA was not able to recognize it as a poorly faked dokument but blix and his guys were able to tear apart in one afternoon? what kind of shitheads are in charge at the CIA? you rely on these morons? holy cow!

  it was never a question, or there wouldnt have been sanctions!

  bullshit! whether hussein had WMDs or not is irrelevant here...the europeans kept the sanctions because of the US (just as it is the case with cuba). do you think any european country/company is risking to loose buisness with the US just to sell some trash to hussein? laughable!

  maybe because the weapons inspectors werent allowed in iraq for the last five years!?!

  also bullshit! the weapons inspectors chose to leave iraq! hussein did NOT ban them!

  what other numbers could we possibly have,

  OK I LOOKED IT UP...the numbers you posted were from a 1995 UN report!