Blix attacks 'bastards in the White House' By James Langton in New York, Evening Standard 11 June 2003 United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix says "bastards" in the Bush administration attempted to undermine his work in Iraq - and Tony Blair accepted intelligence reports that "did not hold water" in his decision to go to war. Mr Blix also poured scorn on the quality of British and US intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. In an interview to be shown today on American television, he says: "I think they believed in what they saw, but some of the material did not hold water. Earl ie r, Mr Blix launched a verbal assault on what he called "my detractors in Washington", saying: "There are bastards who spread things around, who planted nasty things in the media." He also accused the White House of " leaning" on the UN inspection team to produce a more damning report in order to swing votes behind the American and British position in the Security Council. Asked if he believed he had been the target of a deliberate smear campaign by the Pentagon, he said: "Yes, I probably was at a lower level." He also attacked critics of the UN in Washington who regarded the body as an "alien power" based in New York. He says he "remains agnostic" about the possibility of chemical and biological weapons being found in Iraq. Last night, neither the White House nor the Pentagon would respond to his claims. Mr Blix is retiring in three weeks. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday named his deputy, Dimitri Perricos, as the new head of the weapons inspection team.
| |||||||||
searchfothetruth
JoinedPosts by searchfothetruth
-
865
WoMD ... so where are they?
by Simon innow, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!
perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.
now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.
-
-
searchfothetruth
-
865
WoMD ... so where are they?
by Simon innow, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!
perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.
now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.
-
-
searchfothetruth
Dubla,
Why don't you have a go at answering the following questions:
1.) How is it that if the administration knew that the order had been given to deploy chemical weapons, they did not know where these WMD would be stored?
When the US bribed senior military officers not to defend Baghdad and gave them safe passage out of Iraq, why was the location of these chemical weapons not provided to the US as part of the payoff plan? Could the Iraqi officers deploy WMD without knowing where to go and get them? And remember, it has been reported that Iraq had the capability of deploying WMD within 45 minutes of that command. Someone had to know where to go to obey that command. Didn't they?
2.) If the Collin Powell telephone intercepts presented to the UN were authentic, why couldn't the intelligence community trace the location of these intercepts and secure those sites after the invasion of Iraq? And whatever happened to those big missiles he showed us?
3.) How is it that the administration was able to know the whereabouts of Saddam and launch the initial bunker attack that started the war, and yet this "source" within the inner circle of power never provided WMD location data that was crucial not only to safety of the world but to the safety of our military personnel who were about to invade Iraq?
4.) The administration said that the UN could not resume inspections because the threat was imminent and delay was dangerous. Now this same administration says we must be patient because it will take time to find these WMD that they used to know the whereabouts of, but must now guess and search. How is that possible?Ahmed Chalabi and other sources insist that Saddam Hussein is still alive and hiding in Iraq. It seems to me if that is true, then surely he and his surviving supporters know where to get the remaining WMD and use them against the occupying forces. Or hasn't that occurred to anyone but me? Are our soldiers in danger?
5.) How is it that a nuclear waste site was left unguarded and subject to looting without regard to possible contamination, even as the US military previously found and guessed this site was part of the "secret" nuclear weapons program?
6.) After the capture of various Iraqi high officials and scientists, how is it that no WMD locations have been revealed thus far? Are these officials so uncooperative and able to resist all interrogation that there is no hope of getting answers?
7.) If as Rumsfeld now claims, Iraq may have destroyed the WMD at the last possible moment in order to embarrass the US, how is it that satellite photos and other intelligence technology failed to notice such large scale efforts? Wouldn't it take major activity and trailers, and Lord knows what else, to destroy the vast quantities of chemical weapons supposedly in stock? And how were these destroyed? Burned and incinerated? Would not the air quality samples around Iraq reflect these chemicals and toxic substances? What about soil and water samples? Didn't we have air sensors deployed with our troops to detect and warn about poisons in the air?
8.) Why is the US not interested in casualty statistics in Iraq?
It would seem to me that the large numbers of Iraqi military personnel unaccounted for would be of prime interest in the occupation - I mean- reconstruction of Iraq. Knowing how many dead soldiers subtracted from the initial troop strength reports should provide an idea of the size of possible resistance to the proposed US interim government. It might also indicate the length of continued US involvement and the necessary troops needed to maintain the peace. But I could be wrong.
Like I said in the beginning, I'm no brain, just a guy with questions. And who knows, maybe the really smart guys like Rove and Rumsfeld will explain everything at the GOP convention. By then I'm sure they will have their act together.
Still, I have to ask: If we knew where it was, why don't we know where it is?
These shouldn't be that hard to explain to a stupid conspiracy theorist like me....should they?
-
865
WoMD ... so where are they?
by Simon innow, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!
perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.
now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.
-
-
searchfothetruth
Why America is Waking Up
To The Truth About WMD By Marion McKeone in New York
The Sunday Herald - UK
6-9-3- The leak of part of a Department of Defence report has added fuel to the firestorm over Bush administration claims about the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The top-secret report by the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) last September concluded that it could find no evidence of chemical weapons activity in Iraq. 'There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons,'its one-page summary said.
- The leak has put the White House on the defensive as controversy over the non-discovery of WMD grows.
- Hours after the report summary -- written by Defence Department in-house intelligence experts -- was leaked, the head of the DIA was dispatched to deny it contradicted the Bush administration's warnings of a dire, imminent threat to the US from Iraqi chemical weapons.
- DIA Director Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby said the report showed his agency 'could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the WMD programs'. Pressed to explain the discrepancies between the report and administration claims, he said the report was 'not in any way intended to portray the fact that we had doubts that any programme existed, that such a programme was active, or that such a programme was part of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure'.
- The leak appeared to catch the White House by surprise. One official said: 'Look, we are not the only people who claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The rest of the world, including the UN Security Council, believed it too. The only person who claimed that Saddam didn't have weapons was Saddam.'
- But the belief Saddam had stockpiled weapons -- and the imminent threat they posed -- was the core reason cited by Bush during his historic address to the UN last September. He cited evidence of a massive WMD programme, which he said was based on US intelligence and laid down an ultimatum to the UN: either disarm Saddam, or the US will. Asked whether Bush was aware of the DIA report when he warned the UN about the threat , the official declined to comment, saying it was 'unclear' whether Bush or any senior members of the administration had seen the report. It would, however, be unusual if Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the most vigorous supporters of the war, had not read a report issued by his own in-house intelligence agency on the very issue upon which the war was predicated.
- The alacrity of the White House response to the leak suggests it now believes the issue is a political danger for the President . Bush faces increasing pressure from influential lawmakers like Democratic senators Robert Byrd and Bob Graham who demand to know whether the administration manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.
- That doubts about Iraqi weapons existed as far back as a year ago raises a number of unanswered questions . There is growing unease on Capitol Hill, as even Republican lawmakers feel the issue is a symptom of the massive increase in power Rumsfeld has awarded himself at the expense of the CIA and the Department of State.
- 'The basic problem here is that the office of the secretary of defence has become too powerful,'Patrick Lang, a former senior official in the DIA told the Senate. Others, including retired CIA analyst Larry Johnson, have publicly criticised CIA director George Tenet for allowing Rumsfeld to annex the CIA's role. 'Tenet sided with the defence crowd and cut the legs out from under his own analysts,'Johnson said.
- Senior CIA officials have distanced themselves from Rumsfeld's claims that WMD posed an imminent threat. They say these claims are based on information passed directly to Rumsfeld's office by Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress and a Pentagon favourite to become the next Iraqi leader. But the CIA regarded his sources as deeply suspect and said his claims were largely based on hearsay from other defectors with vested interests in regime change.
- The big question now is: was Bush was duped himself, or did he dupe the people into believing war was necessary? Some Democrats, sniffing blood, are poised to attack. Bob Graham, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has claimed that before the war the administration embarked on 'a pattern of hiding information'. Classified evidence that supported its claims about weapons was made public, he said. 'But as a member of the Intelligence Committee I saw much evidence that didn't support its case,' he added. 'That evidence was never declassified. '
- Tracey Schmitt, a Republican spokeswoman, dismissed Graham's comments. 'Senator Graham sounds increasingly more like a conspiracy theorist than a presidential candidate,'she said.
- But even as CIA and Senate investigations into the quality of intelligence used in the build up the war in Iraq get under way, officials are denying that top members of the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, pressured the CIA into coming up with intelligence that would bolster the administration's case. It has been claimed by CIA officials that Cheney made repeated visits to the CIA to discuss intelligence about Iraq -- a highly unusual move for a vice-president. 'The vice president values the hard work of the intelligence community, but his office has a practice of declining to comment on the specifics of his intelligence briefings,' his public affairs director responded.
- <http://www.sundayherald.com/34463>http://www.sundayherald.com/34463
-
865
WoMD ... so where are they?
by Simon innow, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!
perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.
now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.
-
-
searchfothetruth
PD,
Do you mean the passport that the FBI did a press conference on saying it had been found, and then a year later saying it was just a rumour?
-
-
-
searchfothetruth
Heres what happening to you:
-
53
One thing about Clinton...
by Abaddon in... was that no one was ever accused of being unpatriotic if they hammered him.
now, of course, w might be a paragon of virtue in comparison, at least with regard to oral sex in the oval office, but many people who have criticised aspects of his presidency have had all sorts of accusations rained down upon their heads.
i found this article an interesting discussion.
-
-
searchfothetruth
They tried to impeach Clinton because he 'lied' about having a sexual relationship with Monica,
but Bush has lied about the reasons for getting 7000 civilians killed...
A liar is a liar....go figure.
-
865
WoMD ... so where are they?
by Simon innow, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!
perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.
now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.
-
-
searchfothetruth
Rem,
Very good point...where is he, and why couldn't the US find him?
A very similar situation to Bin Laden.
With all the technology that the US has, for example Global Hawk which can not only read a number plate from 56,000 feet, but can even sense the heat on a runway from a plane that has already taken off, and they can't find Bin Laden in a desolate country?
Where is Saddam now? I read an article from PRAVDa, but never posted it because it's Russian and some of you won't read it because it's OBVIOUSLY biased (unlike American news) that stated that he had been given free passage out of the country before the war even started, but of course, no one knows for sure, do they.
It just seems inconcievable to think that these former CIA allies could go missing at the same point, namely, once American interests were fulfilled
-
17
Have you ever tried to pay a compliment and got blasted
by larrynbabies ini know us men aren't the most clever people on earth but sometimes we say things that are meant to be a compliment and we get slammed.. my ex-wife was saying once, that she thought her hair was getting thicker and i, in my logical way was trying to figure out if this could really be true.
i then thought about the fact that she had recently lost wieght and without thinking any further i blurted out.... "your hair is not getting thicker your head is not as fat.".
this is a true story.
-
-
searchfothetruth
This thread is fantastic....
I thought it was just me!!!!
-
865
WoMD ... so where are they?
by Simon innow, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!
perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.
now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.
-
-
searchfothetruth
Last Updated: Monday, 9 June, 2003, 07:50 GMT 08:50 UK E-mail this to a friend Printable version Blunkett regrets Iraq dossier
The British Government should never have published its controversial second dossier on Iraq's weapons, Home Secretary David Blunkett has said. He said reports on the document - widely criticised when it emerged part of it was copied from a US student's thesis - had turned into "the most absurd political story in the whole of my lifetime".
Campbell expressed concern about the dossierHis comments came as the government admitted it had written to the intelligence and security services admitting there were failings in February's dossier, the second on Iraq.
A Downing Street spokesman said Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications, had told the agencies "far greater care" would be taken in dealing with anything which might impact on their reputation and work.
Two Iraq dossiers Sept 2002: claimed Iraq had a continuing programme of chemical and biological weapons and had tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa Feb 2003: drawn from a number of sources, but labelled "dodgy dossier" because parts plagiarised from 12-year-old thesis Number 10 has denied Mr Campbell's intervention amounts to an apology.
But veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell, who vehemently opposed war on Iraq, said it was "the first proof of how badly the government handled intelligence on the basis of which we went to war".
The prime minister is under increasing pressure over the way the government made the case for war in Iraq, with coalition forces yet to find weapons of mass destruction.
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said that she did not think the row over dossiers released by the government were the central issue in post-Saddam Iraq.
She said that with "all the difficulties" things were a "great deal better" without the Iraqi dictator and that people were "fed up" with journalists trawling through the details of what the government said.
'Smoking gun'
The Conservatives have repeatedly called for an independent inquiry into whether intelligence documents were changed on the orders of Downing Street to strengthen the case for military action.
Meanwhile, intelligence officers are holding a "smoking gun" showing they came under pressure for evidence to use against Iraq in the run-up to the conflict, it is reported.
The Independent on Sunday said intelligence services were so concerned about demands made by Downing Street they kept detailed records of communications with the prime minister's staff.
Mr Blunkett told BBC One's The Politics Show: "I think it would be better if we hadn't published that dossier because it was about the background to Iraq - it wasn't about the identification of weapons of mass destruction. Security bosses were told procedures would be tightened"I think it was just an honest appraisal by Alastair Campbell, and I think we should draw a line under what has now become the most absurd political story in the whole of my lifetime...
"The truth is the people of Iraq are freed from a tyrant."
Robin Cook, who resigned as Commons leader over the war, said it would be "grotesquely unfair" if Mr Campbell was made a scapegoat over the government's use of intelligence information on Iraq.
Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost programme Mr Blair's credibility was "on the line".
Committees' inquiries
But Chancellor Gordon Brown insisted that "the evidence and history will prove that Tony Blair made a courageous and the right decision over Iraq".
"I believe that all countries, when we passed the UN resolution... believed that there were and are weapons of mass destruction," he told the programme.
The second dossier, entitled Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation, was distributed to journalists on Mr Blair's trip to Washington to discuss plans for war.
The Sunday Telegraph claims it was not first cleared by the Joint Intelligence Committee before being published.
That committee approved the first dossier, published in September, which is now subject to an inquiry by the Commons foreign affairs select committee.
The Intelligence and Security Committee is also investigating that report, which the government denies was doctored in order to muster support for war.
BBC REPORT TODAY>
-
865
WoMD ... so where are they?
by Simon innow, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!
perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.
now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.
-
-
searchfothetruth
Dubla,
I'm a bit confused...as normal after reading your posts.
you said:
here come a repeat....the "evidence" is never what caused me to believe that saddam had wmd, and the reasons ive given have yet to be refuted with any type of reasonable explanation.
If you didn't use the 'evidence' to cause you to believe that Saddam had WMD, what did you use, ESP or maybe a crystal ball?
How did you know, when the government tried it's damndest to convince everyone else?
And the fact that you 'knew' that Saddam had WMD has been proven wrong, hasn't it?
Printable version 
Campbell expressed concern about the dossier
Security bosses were told procedures would be tightened