Full Version: Stacking the deck on intelligence gathering
This link is dated but I think quite relevant to our present controversy on whether intelligence leading up to war in Iraq was "guided" to achieve a certain conclusion. If this is true then the "creation" of intelligence was even more extensive than I had earlier understood and I was already aware of Cheney and his work with Chalabi's group, the INC.
Karen Kwiatkowski worked in proximity to the Pentagon's Office of Special Planning (OSP) in the critical months before the war began. While there she noted the steady stacking of agenda based neocons in key positions who knew what their mission was and it wasn't objective intelligence or analysis apparently. Pretty shocking stuff. Maybe the lady is exaggerating but she seems pretty credible and gives you a lot of detail and names.
Office of Special Planning - The path to war
Questions:
Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
If you think the administration did manipulate intelligence, who do you think was principally responsible?
Karen Kwiatkowski worked in proximity to the Pentagon's Office of Special Planning (OSP) in the critical months before the war began. While there she noted the steady stacking of agenda based neocons in key positions who knew what their mission was and it wasn't objective intelligence or analysis apparently. Pretty shocking stuff. Maybe the lady is exaggerating but she seems pretty credible and gives you a lot of detail and names.
Office of Special Planning - The path to war
QUOTE
From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it.
I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies.
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.
I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies.
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.
Questions:
Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
If you think the administration did manipulate intelligence, who do you think was principally responsible?
QUOTE(Dingo @ Dec 3 2005, 03:31 AM)
This link is dated but I think quite relevant to our present controversy on whether intelligence leading up to war in Iraq was "guided" to achieve a certain conclusion. If this is true then the "creation" of intelligence was even more extensive than I had earlier understood and I was already aware of Cheney and his work with Chalabi's group, the INC.
Karen Kwiatkowski worked in proximity to the Pentagon's Office of Special Planning (OSP) in the critical months before the war began. While there she noted the steady stacking of agenda based neocons in key positions who knew what their mission was and it wasn't objective intelligence or analysis apparently. Pretty shocking stuff. Maybe the lady is exaggerating but she seems pretty credible and gives you a lot of detail and names.
Karen Kwiatkowski worked in proximity to the Pentagon's Office of Special Planning (OSP) in the critical months before the war began. While there she noted the steady stacking of agenda based neocons in key positions who knew what their mission was and it wasn't objective intelligence or analysis apparently. Pretty shocking stuff. Maybe the lady is exaggerating but she seems pretty credible and gives you a lot of detail and names.
First things first. Kwiatkowski was not an insider. She never worked on the iraq issue and had no direct knowledge of any attempts to pressure or coerce intelligence analysts. She had not one iota of proof to offer the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence(pdf file, see page 283) aside from hearsay which was not subsequently backed up by her supposed sources.
QUOTE
The desk officer told committee staff that she never worked the iraq issue and had no direct knowledge of any attempts to pressure or coerce intelligence analysts. She obtained the information that she provided to Committee staff based on looking at the secret level intranet in the Pentagon and through discussions with colleagues.
The desk officer told Committee staff that a DIA senior intelligence analyst had told her that he had been pressured by the Deputy Under Secretary to change a briefing he was giving on Iraq and that he refused to change the briefing because the intelligence did not support the Deputy Under Secretary’s conclusion. She said that after this incident the senior analyst was excluded from bilateral exchange visits. Committee staff interviewed the DIA senior intelligence analyst (pg 280) who said that he had not been asked to change any briefings on Iraq, but said he was asked not to use the work “assassinations” when giving a brief on the Israeli Defense Force. He provided no information to show that he had been excluded from the bilateral visits because of his analysis.
**snipped out portion…indicating she could not provide any examples of hostile climate (other than the senior analyst mentioned previously) or of instances where points differed from analysis to back up her charges**
When asked whether she had any evidence of the Office of Special Plans attempting to pressure CIA analysts she said that she had heard the Deputy Under Secretary make negative comments about the CIA’s analysis but said she could not say that the office pressured CIA. The desk officer also made several accusations that Administration policy speeches included information that was not supported by intelligence, specifically on issues such as the threat of Iraq’s unmanned aerial vehicles, alleged attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, and attempts to acquire aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge enrichment program, but she was unaware that publicly released intelligence showed that the IC had in fact published finished intelligence products making each one of these assessments. She had no direct knowledge to support any claims that intelligence analysts were pressured and much of what she said is contradicted by information from other interviews and intelligence reporting.
The desk officer told Committee staff that a DIA senior intelligence analyst had told her that he had been pressured by the Deputy Under Secretary to change a briefing he was giving on Iraq and that he refused to change the briefing because the intelligence did not support the Deputy Under Secretary’s conclusion. She said that after this incident the senior analyst was excluded from bilateral exchange visits. Committee staff interviewed the DIA senior intelligence analyst (pg 280) who said that he had not been asked to change any briefings on Iraq, but said he was asked not to use the work “assassinations” when giving a brief on the Israeli Defense Force. He provided no information to show that he had been excluded from the bilateral visits because of his analysis.
**snipped out portion…indicating she could not provide any examples of hostile climate (other than the senior analyst mentioned previously) or of instances where points differed from analysis to back up her charges**
When asked whether she had any evidence of the Office of Special Plans attempting to pressure CIA analysts she said that she had heard the Deputy Under Secretary make negative comments about the CIA’s analysis but said she could not say that the office pressured CIA. The desk officer also made several accusations that Administration policy speeches included information that was not supported by intelligence, specifically on issues such as the threat of Iraq’s unmanned aerial vehicles, alleged attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, and attempts to acquire aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge enrichment program, but she was unaware that publicly released intelligence showed that the IC had in fact published finished intelligence products making each one of these assessments. She had no direct knowledge to support any claims that intelligence analysts were pressured and much of what she said is contradicted by information from other interviews and intelligence reporting.
Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
Well, she obviously isn't being exactly forthecoming when she says she "witnessed these things firsthand" is she? I'm sure she believes what she is saying. I think I know who Hersh's “unnamed Pentagon source" might be now.
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
I think he used the evidence to fit his case for an invasion (like other presidents, I might add), because he thought it was in the security interest of the United States. Intelligence is never perfect, particularly in a case such as this where we had few sources within a very secret, closed society (as Iraq was under sanction) other than insiders who were likely feeding us information to suite their own agendas. The sources, however, included even prior head scientists who worked under Saddam. I don't believe Bush "falsified" it, or "created" it, no.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 3 2005, 09:22 AM)
First things first. Kwiatkowski was not an insider. She never worked on the iraq issue and had no direct knowledge of any attempts to pressure or coerce intelligence analysts. She had not one iota of proof to offer the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence(pdf file, see page 283) aside from hearsay which was not subsequently backed up by her supposed sources.
QUOTE
The desk officer told committee staff that she never worked the iraq issue and had no direct knowledge of any attempts to pressure or coerce intelligence analysts. She obtained the information that she provided to Committee staff based on looking at the secret level intranet in the Pentagon and through discussions with colleagues.
The desk officer told Committee staff that a DIA senior intelligence analyst had told her that he had been pressured by the Deputy Under Secretary to change a briefing he was giving on Iraq and that he refused to change the briefing because the intelligence did not support the Deputy Under Secretary’s conclusion. She said that after this incident the senior analyst was excluded from bilateral exchange visits. Committee staff interviewed the DIA senior intelligence analyst (pg 280) who said that he had not been asked to change any briefings on Iraq, but said he was asked not to use the work “assassinations” when giving a brief on the Israeli Defense Force. He provided no information to show that he had been excluded from the bilateral visits because of his analysis.
**snipped out portion…indicating she could not provide any examples of hostile climate (other than the senior analyst mentioned previously) or of instances where points differed from analysis to back up her charges**
When asked whether she had any evidence of the Office of Special Plans attempting to pressure CIA analysts she said that she had heard the Deputy Under Secretary make negative comments about the CIA’s analysis but said she could not say that the office pressured CIA. The desk officer also made several accusations that Administration policy speeches included information that was not supported by intelligence, specifically on issues such as the threat of Iraq’s unmanned aerial vehicles, alleged attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, and attempts to acquire aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge enrichment program, but she was unaware that publicly released intelligence showed that the IC had in fact published finished intelligence products making each one of these assessments. She had no direct knowledge to support any claims that intelligence analysts were pressured and much of what she said is contradicted by information from other interviews and intelligence reporting.
The desk officer told Committee staff that a DIA senior intelligence analyst had told her that he had been pressured by the Deputy Under Secretary to change a briefing he was giving on Iraq and that he refused to change the briefing because the intelligence did not support the Deputy Under Secretary’s conclusion. She said that after this incident the senior analyst was excluded from bilateral exchange visits. Committee staff interviewed the DIA senior intelligence analyst (pg 280) who said that he had not been asked to change any briefings on Iraq, but said he was asked not to use the work “assassinations” when giving a brief on the Israeli Defense Force. He provided no information to show that he had been excluded from the bilateral visits because of his analysis.
**snipped out portion…indicating she could not provide any examples of hostile climate (other than the senior analyst mentioned previously) or of instances where points differed from analysis to back up her charges**
When asked whether she had any evidence of the Office of Special Plans attempting to pressure CIA analysts she said that she had heard the Deputy Under Secretary make negative comments about the CIA’s analysis but said she could not say that the office pressured CIA. The desk officer also made several accusations that Administration policy speeches included information that was not supported by intelligence, specifically on issues such as the threat of Iraq’s unmanned aerial vehicles, alleged attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, and attempts to acquire aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge enrichment program, but she was unaware that publicly released intelligence showed that the IC had in fact published finished intelligence products making each one of these assessments. She had no direct knowledge to support any claims that intelligence analysts were pressured and much of what she said is contradicted by information from other interviews and intelligence reporting.
I think if her sources were still in government or wanted to maintain a favorable relationship with government I hardly think they would back her up. I also don't think that talking to government workers who were "in the loop" would qualify as merely hearsay. Furthermore she was working in NESA, a related group, and directly was able to observe the changes there which apparently mirrored what was happening with OSP according to her. Then again she could be lying or simply deluding herself. I am however impressed by the level of detail she offers.
Here she gives you a direct sense of how policy was being agendaized in NESA (Near East South Asia directorate)
QUOTE
I learned that there was indeed a preferred ideology for NESA. My first day in the office, a GS-15 career civil servant rather unhappily advised me that if I wanted to be successful here, I'd better remember not to say anything positive about the Palestinians. This belied official U.S. policy of serving as an honest broker for resolution of Israeli and Palestinian security concerns. At that time, there was a great deal of talk about Bush's possible support for a Palestinian state. That the Pentagon could have implemented and, worse, was implementing its own foreign policy had not yet occurred to me.
And here she is informed of the Chalabi connection.
QUOTE
A politically savvy civilian-clothes-wearing lieutenant colonel named Bill Bruner served as the Iraq desk officer, and he had apparently joined NESA about the time Bill Luti did. I discovered that Bruner, like Luti, had served as a military aide to Speaker Gingrich. Gingrich himself was now conveniently an active member of Bush's Defense Policy Board, which had space immediately below ours on the third floor.
I asked why Bruner wore civilian attire, and was told by others, "He's Chalabi's handler." Chalabi, of course, was Ahmad Chalabi, the president of the Iraqi National Congress, who was the favored exile of the neoconservatives and the source of much of their "intelligence."
I asked why Bruner wore civilian attire, and was told by others, "He's Chalabi's handler." Chalabi, of course, was Ahmad Chalabi, the president of the Iraqi National Congress, who was the favored exile of the neoconservatives and the source of much of their "intelligence."
If Kwiatkowski were alone in offering testimony of agenda based evidence development it would be easier to dismiss her but there are so many other examples where, for instance, evidence that had been more or less discredited was resurrected later in, for example, Powell's prewar UN speech. Sources like "Curveball", al Libi and Al-Haideri who were no longer considered credible were maintained as legitimate purveyors of evidence by the Bush folks. The same with the aluminum tubing and the nuclear Niger connection. Here's a link to some of these matters.
Did the BA manipulate intelligence?
This link deals with evidence being kept from Congress by the president's people and also includes some background that directly dovetails with Karen Kwiatsowski's observations about agenda based intelligence development.
Misleading the Hill and alternative "intelligence" development.
QUOTE
One reason that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld made statements that contradicted what they were told in CIA briefings might have been that they were receiving information from another source that purported to have evidence of Al Qaeda-Iraq ties. The information came from a covert intelligence unit set up shortly after the September 11 attacks by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith.
Feith was a protégé of, and intensely loyal to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and Cheney's then-chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The secretive unit was set up because Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Libby did not believe the CIA would be able to get to the bottom of the matter of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. The four men shared a long-standing distrust of the CIA from their earlier positions in government, and felt that the agency had failed massively by not predicting the September 11 attacks.
At first, the Feith-directed unit primarily consisted of two men, former journalist Michael Maloof and David Wurmser, a veteran of neoconservative think tanks. They liked to refer to themselves as the "Iraqi intelligence cell" of the Pentagon. And they took pride in the fact that their office was in an out-of-the-way cipher-locked room, with "charts that rung the room from one end to the other" showing the "interconnections of various terrorist groups" with one another and, most important, with Iraq, Maloof recalled in an interview.
They also had the heady experience of briefing Rumsfeld twice, and Feith more frequently, Maloof said. The vice president's office also showed great interest in their work. On at least three occasions, Maloof said, Samantha Ravich, then-national security adviser for terrorism to Cheney, visited their windowless offices for a briefing.
But neither Maloof nor Wurmser had any experience or formal training in intelligence analysis. Maloof later lost his security clearance, for allegedly failing to disclose a relationship with a woman who is a foreigner, and after allegations that he leaked classified information to the press. Maloof said in the interview that he has done nothing wrong and was simply being punished for his controversial theories. Wurmser has since been named as Cheney's Middle East adviser.
Feith was a protégé of, and intensely loyal to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and Cheney's then-chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The secretive unit was set up because Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Libby did not believe the CIA would be able to get to the bottom of the matter of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. The four men shared a long-standing distrust of the CIA from their earlier positions in government, and felt that the agency had failed massively by not predicting the September 11 attacks.
At first, the Feith-directed unit primarily consisted of two men, former journalist Michael Maloof and David Wurmser, a veteran of neoconservative think tanks. They liked to refer to themselves as the "Iraqi intelligence cell" of the Pentagon. And they took pride in the fact that their office was in an out-of-the-way cipher-locked room, with "charts that rung the room from one end to the other" showing the "interconnections of various terrorist groups" with one another and, most important, with Iraq, Maloof recalled in an interview.
They also had the heady experience of briefing Rumsfeld twice, and Feith more frequently, Maloof said. The vice president's office also showed great interest in their work. On at least three occasions, Maloof said, Samantha Ravich, then-national security adviser for terrorism to Cheney, visited their windowless offices for a briefing.
But neither Maloof nor Wurmser had any experience or formal training in intelligence analysis. Maloof later lost his security clearance, for allegedly failing to disclose a relationship with a woman who is a foreigner, and after allegations that he leaked classified information to the press. Maloof said in the interview that he has done nothing wrong and was simply being punished for his controversial theories. Wurmser has since been named as Cheney's Middle East adviser.
QUOTE
MPP. Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
Well, she obviously isn't being exactly forthecoming when she says she "witnessed these things firsthand" is she? I'm sure she believes what she is saying. I think I know who Hersh's “unnamed Pentagon source" might be now.
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
I think he used the evidence to fit his case for an invasion (like other presidents, I might add), because he thought it was in the security interest of the United States. Intelligence is never perfect, particularly in a case such as this where we had few sources within a very secret, closed society (as Iraq was under sanction) other than insiders who were likely feeding us information to suite their own agendas. The sources, however, included even prior head scientists who worked under Saddam. I don't believe Bush "falsified" it, or "created" it, no.
Well, she obviously isn't being exactly forthecoming when she says she "witnessed these things firsthand" is she? I'm sure she believes what she is saying. I think I know who Hersh's “unnamed Pentagon source" might be now.
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
I think he used the evidence to fit his case for an invasion (like other presidents, I might add), because he thought it was in the security interest of the United States. Intelligence is never perfect, particularly in a case such as this where we had few sources within a very secret, closed society (as Iraq was under sanction) other than insiders who were likely feeding us information to suite their own agendas. The sources, however, included even prior head scientists who worked under Saddam. I don't believe Bush "falsified" it, or "created" it, no.
I'm inclined to agree that the president truly believed that there was a threat from Iraq as he described. But I don't think he or his people were beyond "fixing" the evidence to an extent to make a more compelling case for their beliefs and the necessity of invading.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Dec 3 2005, 03:57 PM)
I think if her sources were still in government or wanted to maintain a favorable relationship with government I hardly think they would back her up. I also don't think that talking to government workers who were "in the loop" would qualify as merely hearsay. Furthermore she was working in NESA, a related group, and directly was able to observe the changes there which apparently mirrored what was happening with OSP according to her. Then again she could be lying or simply deluding herself. I am however impressed by the level of detail she offers.
She was "observing these changes" and picking up information as a desk officer on the outside looking in. That gave her the opportunity for a more complete picture than you or I, but it's a pinhole, not a window. There is little context for anything she saw or heard. I personally don't think she is lying, precisely. I think she saw what her perspective led her to see from her small vantage point. Of course, I haven't read everything she has ever written but that is my hunch from what I have read of her work.
QUOTE
Here she gives you a direct sense of how policy was being agendaized in NESA (Near East South Asia directorate)
QUOTE
I learned that there was indeed a preferred ideology for NESA. My first day in the office, a GS-15 career civil servant rather unhappily advised me that if I wanted to be successful here, I'd better remember not to say anything positive about the Palestinians. This belied official U.S. policy of serving as an honest broker for resolution of Israeli and Palestinian security concerns. At that time, there was a great deal of talk about Bush's possible support for a Palestinian state. That the Pentagon could have implemented and, worse, was implementing its own foreign policy had not yet occurred to me.
Again, the interpretation of the above depends entirely on the context in which the statement was delivered. Was this a person training her and offering serious advice? Was this a disgruntled employee making smalltalk? Was this the person she was working for? Was it said in jest? The answers to those questions are necessary to make any judgement on the situation here and none of that is given.
QUOTE
If Kwiatkowski were alone in offering testimony of agenda based evidence development it would be easier to dismiss her but there are so many other examples where, for instance, evidence that had been more or less discredited was resurrected later in, for example, Powell's prewar UN speech. Sources like "Curveball", al Libi and Al-Haideri who were no longer considered credible were maintained as legitimate purveyors of evidence by the Bush folks. The same with the aluminum tubing and the nuclear Niger connection. Here's a link to some of these matters.
Did the BA manipulate intelligence?
Did the BA manipulate intelligence?
The above would be damning if those were the only sources for this intelligence, but they weren't. Even PBS interviews at that time offered different sources for this information. The link I provided in the post above covers each and every one of these issues in detail. There is so much intelligence that the examination of it alone covers over 500 pages (fortunately there is a table of contents at the beginning so you can scroll). There were certainly LOTS of mistakes made, but the bottom line is, intelligence agencies approved the use of the information in these speeches as credible. Example:
QUOTE
Page 76, Conclusion 18. When documents regarding the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting became available to the Intelligence Community in October 2002, Centrl Intelligence Agency analysts and operations officers should have made an effort to obtain copies. As a result of not obtaining the documents, CIA Iraq nuclear analysts continued to report on Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from Africa and continued to approve the use of such language in Administration publications and speeches.
What happened, in a nutshell, is pretty easy to see even looking at it from our vantage point. There were simply not enough human intelligence sources on the ground, and technology offered an ineffective replacement. This happened with "Curveball" who incidentally wasn't the only source for this information, though an important one. Satellite imagery captured what intelligence officers believed to be precisely the mobile labs he described. Later, they moved and this was used as (partial) confirmation that they existed.
When we went into the first Gulf war, over half a million soldiers were deployed to the Persian Gulf region. How many did we have this time? I don't think the number was even half that. Even after activating guard units and stop loss. It wasn't because Rummy thought we could do it with technology and a sleeker, smaller force (though he did), and it wasn't because Bush was overconfident (though he was), it was because there simply weren't more forces available to do it, so they rationalized that it would be enough. It is the same with intelligence there simply were not enough sources on the ground. They went with the information they had, though there were some warts. They were wrong (or so we think...I personally believe that if Saddam could find the means to build palaces and import freshwater dolphins for his fountain surreptitiously he could export things other than oil but that's a different thread and also total speculation on my part).
[b]Questions:
Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
No I don’t. What “falsehoods” are we speaking of? WMD? We can point to every intel organization in the world, the UN and statements by numerous others to support the statements made by the administration. Iraq HAD and used WMD. Iraq never complied with a single UN resolution. Iraq never proved to anyone it destroyed tons of VX produced and thousands of liters of anthrax. These are the facts. To say that, unlike the Clinton Administration, the Bush people after 9/11 actually wanted to DO something about Iraq is not IMO hyping anything
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
NO. The intel used was also used by others. They used available facts to make their argument. Did Clinton and the Dems "manipulate" intel after bombing Iraq in 1998 to target some of the massive WMD they said he had? What could have changed to 2002? The UN surely thought Saddam still had massive ammounts of WMD.
[/quote]
Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
No I don’t. What “falsehoods” are we speaking of? WMD? We can point to every intel organization in the world, the UN and statements by numerous others to support the statements made by the administration. Iraq HAD and used WMD. Iraq never complied with a single UN resolution. Iraq never proved to anyone it destroyed tons of VX produced and thousands of liters of anthrax. These are the facts. To say that, unlike the Clinton Administration, the Bush people after 9/11 actually wanted to DO something about Iraq is not IMO hyping anything
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
NO. The intel used was also used by others. They used available facts to make their argument. Did Clinton and the Dems "manipulate" intel after bombing Iraq in 1998 to target some of the massive WMD they said he had? What could have changed to 2002? The UN surely thought Saddam still had massive ammounts of WMD.
[/quote]
Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
Yes, but there are far better sources of information demonstrating the manufacturing and manipulation of intelligence to take us to war.
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
Yes, here are a couple of articles that discuss some of the evidence. They are documented with links to other material. (See A Libertarian's View of the Forgery and The FBI takes another look at Forgeries).
If you think the administration did manipulate intelligence, who do you think was principally responsible?
Cheney's office and the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon were primarily responsible for doing end runs around the intelligence agencies and developing bogus intel as needed. On the other hand, they were assisted by outsiders and the entire administration knowing used their bogus material to successful scare the Congress and the people into undertaking a "preventive" war.
Yes, but there are far better sources of information demonstrating the manufacturing and manipulation of intelligence to take us to war.
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
Yes, here are a couple of articles that discuss some of the evidence. They are documented with links to other material. (See A Libertarian's View of the Forgery and The FBI takes another look at Forgeries).
If you think the administration did manipulate intelligence, who do you think was principally responsible?
Cheney's office and the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon were primarily responsible for doing end runs around the intelligence agencies and developing bogus intel as needed. On the other hand, they were assisted by outsiders and the entire administration knowing used their bogus material to successful scare the Congress and the people into undertaking a "preventive" war.
[quote=TedN5,Dec 5 2005, 02:50 PM]
Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
Yes, but there are far better sources of information demonstrating the manufacturing and manipulation of intelligence to take us to war.
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
Yes, here are a couple of articles that discuss some of the evidence. They are documented with links to other material. (See A Libertarian's View of the Forgery and The FBI takes another look at Forgeries).
TedN5
We did NOT go to war over the “Niger” yellow cake forgery. This was a minor part of the equation. We did go to war because Saddam was required by UN resolutions (none of which he complied with) to prove he destroyed his significant stockpiles of WMD and dismantled the programs. This he did NOT do.
Here is the ISG report. Iraq was every bit as dangerous as Bill Clinton and all his Dems said they were in 1998. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...vol1_rfp-07.htm
Saddam stole 21.3 BILLION $ with the help of France and the UN to support future WMD production from the dozens of existing programs running there to the day we invaded. Key findings http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...ey-findings.htm
Include this:
Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.
Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
This regime was a danger to the US and the region. The report makes that very clear. He violated every UN resolution and planned to be back in business with massive nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs running right under the noses of the UN.
This was the reason for war.
Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
Yes, but there are far better sources of information demonstrating the manufacturing and manipulation of intelligence to take us to war.
Do you think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to suit an invasion agenda?
Yes, here are a couple of articles that discuss some of the evidence. They are documented with links to other material. (See A Libertarian's View of the Forgery and The FBI takes another look at Forgeries).
TedN5
We did NOT go to war over the “Niger” yellow cake forgery. This was a minor part of the equation. We did go to war because Saddam was required by UN resolutions (none of which he complied with) to prove he destroyed his significant stockpiles of WMD and dismantled the programs. This he did NOT do.
Here is the ISG report. Iraq was every bit as dangerous as Bill Clinton and all his Dems said they were in 1998. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...vol1_rfp-07.htm
Saddam stole 21.3 BILLION $ with the help of France and the UN to support future WMD production from the dozens of existing programs running there to the day we invaded. Key findings http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...ey-findings.htm
Include this:
Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.
Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
This regime was a danger to the US and the region. The report makes that very clear. He violated every UN resolution and planned to be back in business with massive nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs running right under the noses of the UN.
This was the reason for war.
My Karen Kwiatkowski link on the first post presently has server problems. Here is an alternative site carrying the same article
Karen Kwiatkowski - Path to war
Karen Kwiatkowski - Path to war
I assume my last post will be treated as a nonpost as I was simply linking to a different url to resurrect an article from an earlier link whose server was down.
(Note: reformatted for clarity).
Ted we had UN inspectors there to deal with matters having to do with WMDs, including those for which there were no earlier records of having been destroyed. The Security Council even offered to up the number of inspectors. The inspectors past track record of uncovering SH's attempts to hide WMDs should have given the process some credibility.
It appears that for many in the BA the UN inspections were little more than a pretext to show we were respecting international concerns. I recall many, like Cheney, wanted to bypass the UN inspections process all together but the English and Powell used their influence to at least have us appear to go through the motions.
Blix said he was able to inspect anything he wanted. That raises a huge flag to me about what our intentions were.
--------------------------------
Well you hit the jackpot on that one.
Wikipedia on Karen Kwiatkowski
It also has a quote agreeing with you about the Senate Intelligence Committee debunking her allegations. As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on that one.
(Note: reformatted for clarity).
QUOTE
Ted. Do you feel Karen Kwiatkowski is credible?
No I don’t. What “falsehoods” are we speaking of? WMD? We can point to every intel organization in the world, the UN and statements by numerous others to support the statements made by the administration. Iraq HAD and used WMD. Iraq never complied with a single UN resolution. Iraq never proved to anyone it destroyed tons of VX produced and thousands of liters of anthrax. These are the facts. To say that, unlike the Clinton Administration, the Bush people after 9/11 actually wanted to DO something about Iraq is not IMO hyping anything
No I don’t. What “falsehoods” are we speaking of? WMD? We can point to every intel organization in the world, the UN and statements by numerous others to support the statements made by the administration. Iraq HAD and used WMD. Iraq never complied with a single UN resolution. Iraq never proved to anyone it destroyed tons of VX produced and thousands of liters of anthrax. These are the facts. To say that, unlike the Clinton Administration, the Bush people after 9/11 actually wanted to DO something about Iraq is not IMO hyping anything
Ted we had UN inspectors there to deal with matters having to do with WMDs, including those for which there were no earlier records of having been destroyed. The Security Council even offered to up the number of inspectors. The inspectors past track record of uncovering SH's attempts to hide WMDs should have given the process some credibility.
It appears that for many in the BA the UN inspections were little more than a pretext to show we were respecting international concerns. I recall many, like Cheney, wanted to bypass the UN inspections process all together but the English and Powell used their influence to at least have us appear to go through the motions.
Blix said he was able to inspect anything he wanted. That raises a huge flag to me about what our intentions were.
--------------------------------
QUOTE
MPP. I think I know who Hersh's “unnamed Pentagon source" might be now.
Well you hit the jackpot on that one.
Wikipedia on Karen Kwiatkowski
QUOTE
Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays that denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. She has said that she was the anonymous source used by Seymour Hersh and Warren Strobel in their respective exposés of pre-war intelligence.
It also has a quote agreeing with you about the Senate Intelligence Committee debunking her allegations. As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on that one.
QUOTE
Ted we had UN inspectors there to deal with matters having to do with WMDs, including those for which there were no earlier records of having been destroyed. The Security Council even offered to up the number of inspectors. The inspectors past track record of uncovering SH's attempts to hide WMDs should have given the process some credibility.
It appears that for many in the BA the UN inspections were little more than a pretext to show we were respecting international concerns. I recall many, like Cheney, wanted to bypass the UN inspections process all together but the English and Powell used their influence to at least have us appear to go through the motions.
Blix said he was able to inspect anything he wanted. That raises a huge flag to me about what our intentions were.
It appears that for many in the BA the UN inspections were little more than a pretext to show we were respecting international concerns. I recall many, like Cheney, wanted to bypass the UN inspections process all together but the English and Powell used their influence to at least have us appear to go through the motions.
Blix said he was able to inspect anything he wanted. That raises a huge flag to me about what our intentions were.
Well that’s what 1441 was about wasn’t it. You will remember that there were no (that’s 0 none zilch) inspectors in Iraq from 1998 to 2002. Only GWB got the inspectors back in by putting 50,000 US troops on the Iraqi border. The number of inspectors was irrelevant since there was very very little chance the inspectors would stumble across the WMD or the ongoing programs. The Resolution was very clear and the Bush and his people had no confidence Iraq would comply since they did not comply with the other 28 Resolutions, - so they pushed for a time limit. Remember we were in Iraq with inspectors for 8 years and Iraq never complied. Do I need to quote again how much time Blix asked Iraq to bring him the tons of VX that Iraq produced or the 6,500 liters of anthrax? They blew him off and would have done so forever.
Did any of you who think this strategy would have worked ever read the ISG report? How about the oil for food scandal which seems to be covered only by FOX News? Clearly Iraq had paid off the French and Russians to oppose any move on Iraq in the Security Council. This is why Saddam felt confident he could blow off the UN and we would never attack.
At the same time he stole (with help from UN officials) 21.3 BILLION dollars which he used to update and fully fund his NUMEROUS WMD programs and pay off governments and individuals (including the French press by the way).
Read the report and tell me Iraq was a nice safe country and would never have WMD. I find it impossible to believe that the fact that we could not find the WMD and Iraq had numerous opportunities to move them, that we believe he destroyed them. If he had really done that and showed Blix proof there would NOT have been an ivasion.
. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...vol1_rfp-07.htm
QUOTE
Ted. The number of inspectors was irrelevant since there was very very little chance the inspectors would stumble across the WMD or the ongoing programs.
Given the inspectors past successful track record I don't think you have a leg to stand on on the issue of hiding. In addition how could we know whether some of the records of WMD destruction were themselves destroyed or simply not kept? Remember Saddam had other concerns, like worrying about whether he would appear so weak that would invite an invasion from Iran. Or maybe it was just sloppiness.
As far as being in violation of UN resolutions, if that were a reason to invade we would have invaded Israel by now. The question should have been could we within reason satisfy ourselves that Iraq was not an immanent threat. With the inspectors and other forms of surveillance, remember we had constant over flights as well as contacts within Iraq, I think the answer is clearly yes. And we now know we had plenty of intelligence casting at least a strong doubt on WMDs and a working connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam who we knew were sworn enemies. You don't invade countries based on an unconfirmed belief, or at least you don't if reason and evidence and a notion that war is a last resort is part of the equation.
Throwing in the oil-for-food scandal seems like a red herring and has really nothing to do with Iraq as a threat to us.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Dec 8 2005, 05:42 PM)
QUOTE
Ted. The number of inspectors was irrelevant since there was very very little chance the inspectors would stumble across the WMD or the ongoing programs.
QUOTE
Given the inspectors past successful track record I don't think you have a leg to stand on on the issue of hiding. In addition how could we know whether some of the records of WMD destruction were themselves destroyed or simply not kept? Remember Saddam had other concerns, like worrying about whether he would appear so weak that would invite an invasion from Iran. Or maybe it was just sloppiness.
As far as being in violation of UN resolutions, if that were a reason to invade we would have invaded Israel by now. The question should have been could we within reason satisfy ourselves that Iraq was not an immanent threat. With the inspectors and other forms of surveillance, remember we had constant over flights as well as contacts within Iraq, I think the answer is clearly yes. And we now know we had plenty of intelligence casting at least a strong doubt on WMDs and a working connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam who we knew were sworn enemies. You don't invade countries based on an unconfirmed belief, or at least you don't if reason and evidence and a notion that war is a last resort is part of the equation.
Throwing in the oil-for-food scandal seems like a red herring and has really nothing to do with Iraq as a threat to us.
As far as being in violation of UN resolutions, if that were a reason to invade we would have invaded Israel by now. The question should have been could we within reason satisfy ourselves that Iraq was not an immanent threat. With the inspectors and other forms of surveillance, remember we had constant over flights as well as contacts within Iraq, I think the answer is clearly yes. And we now know we had plenty of intelligence casting at least a strong doubt on WMDs and a working connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam who we knew were sworn enemies. You don't invade countries based on an unconfirmed belief, or at least you don't if reason and evidence and a notion that war is a last resort is part of the equation.
Throwing in the oil-for-food scandal seems like a red herring and has really nothing to do with Iraq as a threat to us.
What “track record” is that . Inspectors under Butler found lots of records of WMD production sites and material purchases. In fact the reason Butler was so successful was that Iraq was very good at keeping detailed records – and on computers – in the 90s. This is where most of the UN info came from. If fact it was so good that Iraq admitted to having the WMD after being faced with hard evidence. Do you remember UN inspectors surrounded in a vehicle with piles of documents and reading them into cell phones because Iraqi military would not let them leave without them? The idea that they just “made up” this so they would not “appear” weak is stupid nonsense. In fact they did just that until the proof was uncovered.
See links for numerous details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm
This is why Blix later could demand proof of “8,500 liters of anthrax” and tons of VX nerve gas. He also asked for proof of destruction (which was illegal since the UN required they be present at the destruction of same) and never got it. And the idea that they destroyed all this with no proof is ludicrous. Even Blix thought it was nonsense and asked Iraq to show him the records of allocated money and labor used to do this.
They never did and this is why we went to war. Yes we could have waited longer (years) and the result would have been the same.
Here are some direct quotes from Blix to the UN relating to Iraq’s WMDs
Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number.
I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.
Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.
Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for
I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.
Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.
And last I checked Israel has not invaded a neighbor or used WMD to kill people.
I'm not certain that it can be stated that everyone had the same evidence, or was on the same page from '98 onwards in regards to Iraq and their weapons capabilities. For one, a recent Washington Post article was published that stated a congressional committee found that Congress did not have the same evidence as the president did. Furthermore, Media Matters elaborated on the matter:
-Source
To me, there is a little more than meets the eye on this.
QUOTE
Though it isn't completely clear in the Post's wording, it was the Congressional Research Service, not "Democrats," who stated that the President and his advisors "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence." More importantly, there is absolutely no reason for the Post to suggest that it is merely a Democratic claim that the report "contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence." The report empirically does contradict Bush's claims.
This is simply not a matter of dispute: Bush and his aides have repeatedly said Congress had the "same intelligence" Bush had. The report says that is not true. The report may or may not be correct, but it is a fact that the report "contradicts Bush's contention." Yet, even now, even with a Congressional Research Service report as evidence, The Washington Post apparently can't bring itself to directly contradict Bush. Instead, it pretends that something that is incontrovertible fact is merely a Democratic allegation.
This is simply not a matter of dispute: Bush and his aides have repeatedly said Congress had the "same intelligence" Bush had. The report says that is not true. The report may or may not be correct, but it is a fact that the report "contradicts Bush's contention." Yet, even now, even with a Congressional Research Service report as evidence, The Washington Post apparently can't bring itself to directly contradict Bush. Instead, it pretends that something that is incontrovertible fact is merely a Democratic allegation.
-Source
To me, there is a little more than meets the eye on this.
QUOTE
Ted. This is why Blix later could demand proof of “8,500 liters of anthrax” and tons of VX nerve gas. He also asked for proof of destruction (which was illegal since the UN required they be present at the destruction of same) and never got it. And the idea that they destroyed all this with no proof is ludicrous. Even Blix thought it was nonsense and asked Iraq to show him the records of allocated money and labor used to do this.
They never did and this is why we went to war. Yes we could have waited longer (years) and the result would have been the same.
They never did and this is why we went to war. Yes we could have waited longer (years) and the result would have been the same.
What is absurd to me is the idea that the lack of a written record of the destruction of WMDs should be the justification for an invasion, when you count the costs. As I recall the Security Council offered to triple the number of inspectors. Blix certainly thought that continued inspections was the better alternative and insisted he was able to go check out any site that the US and any others asked him to.
In addition the CIA in an analysis that addressed the hypothetical of Iraqi WMDs said the likelihood of them using them directly or indirectly against the US would depend on whether or not they thought they were about to be invaded. We had him boxed in and under close scrutiny and Kurdistan was secure. The Al Qaeda connection was unproven and the WMDs were unproven.
There were far more dangerous neighbors to be concerned about like Saudi Arabia and Iran as vectors for terrorist projection. We wanted regime change to resolve the earlier war and of course there was that PNAC business. Iraq was a logical place to start the crusade. I even remember a remark by Wolfowitz stating that WMDs was not the principal reason for going in but was the best one to use as a selling point to the public.
QUOTE
the idea that they destroyed all this with no proof is ludicrous.
Perhaps you didn't read some of the expert speculations on the matter. In fact many experts felt it was plausible that Hussein did not want to show a completely empty hand and let potential enemies, Iran particularly, know how weak he was. They felt he might feel his best tactic was to show he had no weapons but retain sufficient ambiguity on the matter of records so a potential adversary would hesitate in considering an attack.
QUOTE
and had no direct knowledge of any attempts to pressure or coerce intelligence analysts.
I thought she said that she witnessed them taking manure and turning it into intelligence?That’s not “pressurizing” when the OSP was intentionally scraping the bottom of the intelligence barrel on purpose.
How could they pressure themselves into doing what they wanted to do anyways?
QUOTE
Dingo
What is absurd to me is the idea that the lack of a written record of the destruction of WMDs should be the justification for an invasion, when you count the costs. As I recall the Security Council offered to triple the number of inspectors. Blix certainly thought that continued inspections was the better alternative and insisted he was able to go check out any site that the US and any others asked him to.
In addition the CIA in an analysis that addressed the hypothetical of Iraqi WMDs said the likelihood of them using them directly or indirectly against the US would depend on whether or not they thought they were about to be invaded. We had him boxed in and under close scrutiny and Kurdistan was secure. The Al Qaeda connection was unproven and the WMDs were unproven.
What is absurd to me is the idea that the lack of a written record of the destruction of WMDs should be the justification for an invasion, when you count the costs. As I recall the Security Council offered to triple the number of inspectors. Blix certainly thought that continued inspections was the better alternative and insisted he was able to go check out any site that the US and any others asked him to.
In addition the CIA in an analysis that addressed the hypothetical of Iraqi WMDs said the likelihood of them using them directly or indirectly against the US would depend on whether or not they thought they were about to be invaded. We had him boxed in and under close scrutiny and Kurdistan was secure. The Al Qaeda connection was unproven and the WMDs were unproven.
It is more than the lack of a “written record” if you read Blix. It is the lack of ANY RECORD at all that lead Blix to doubt it ever happened. As Blix said when give this lame stupid reason:
When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.
However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.
This is a nice way of saying – please don’t think we are stupid enough to believe that story. And Blix NEVER got squat from the Iraqi government before or after this request.
Yes and Blix would have inspected for another 10 years if we let him but it is doubtful we would have found much. Having freedom to go anywhere is far different from knowing where to go. For example Iraq had vast underground “bunkers” (I saw this on the history channel in 2001). Never inspected – and Blix in his last UN appearance asked Iraq for a list of them so he could plan to inspect them!
As far as the AQ connection I read that the only AQ folks were IN Kurdistan so you need to help me there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2149499.stm
A pocket of militant Islamic extremists, believed to be linked to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement, is causing havoc in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.
The presence of the violently anti-American group, known as the Ansar al-Islam (Partisans of Islam), is likely to attract increasing attention as US moves to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime gather pace.
And as far as the ludicrous idea that we had him “boxed in” What the heck does that mean. He shot at our aircraft weekly and the enormous border with Syria was totally un-secure. Even today with all our forces it is not secure. Saddam could have and did move anything he wanted in or out of the country and IMO this is exactly where the WMD went just before we invaded.
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 21 2005, 12:31 PM)
It is more than the lack of a “written record” if you read Blix. It is the lack of ANY RECORD at all that lead Blix to doubt it ever happened. As Blix said when give this lame stupid reason:
When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.
However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.
This is a nice way of saying – please don’t think we are stupid enough to believe that story. And Blix NEVER got squat from the Iraqi government before or after this request.
When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.
However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.
This is a nice way of saying – please don’t think we are stupid enough to believe that story. And Blix NEVER got squat from the Iraqi government before or after this request.
He got squat all right. He got full access to the country. It seems to me you're not factoring in a basic point. Why couldn't Hussein simply falsify the record of WMD destruction, particularly the bio stuff and hide them? If I wanted to keep them around and avoid detection that's what I would do. The truth is the coalition and the inspectors held most of the cards and were quite capable of satisfying themselves that no major WMD operations were going on. Hell we had over flights and were taking pictures right and left. That's how Powell came up with those false pictures at the UN of those supposed bioweapons trucks. That was the stuff the inspectors were immanently qualified to inspect and did when we gave them the locations of suspicious sites.
QUOTE
Iraq had vast underground “bunkers” (I saw this on the history channel in 2001). Never inspected – and Blix in his last UN appearance asked Iraq for a list of them so he could plan to inspect them!
Since I don't know how many bunkers we knew about or what their practical capability was as hide outs for WMDs I really can't comment. My own instinct would be to let the inspectors inspect and since they were the experts let them make the determination as to whether there was a threat. Why take the word subsequently of David Kay and not the inspectors?
QUOTE
As far as the AQ connection I read that the only AQ folks were IN Kurdistan so you need to help me there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2149499.stm
A pocket of militant Islamic extremists, believed to be linked to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement, is causing havoc in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.
The presence of the violently anti-American group, known as the Ansar al-Islam (Partisans of Islam), is likely to attract increasing attention as US moves to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime gather pace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2149499.stm
A pocket of militant Islamic extremists, believed to be linked to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement, is causing havoc in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.
The presence of the violently anti-American group, known as the Ansar al-Islam (Partisans of Islam), is likely to attract increasing attention as US moves to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime gather pace.
Curious that Ansar al-Islam was operating in the Kurdish-American controlled sector, not in the part of Iraq controlled by SH. Another side light is that Zarqawi apparently set up a chemical manufacturing site in Kurdistan which we knew about and on 3 separate occassions the BA nixed Pentagon requests to take it out. Apparently the BA was worried that it would distract from their plan to invade Iraq. Talk about ironies!
QUOTE
And as far as the ludicrous idea that we had him “boxed in” What the heck does that mean. He shot at our aircraft weekly and the enormous border with Syria was totally un-secure. Even today with all our forces it is not secure. Saddam could have and did move anything he wanted in or out of the country and IMO this is exactly where the WMD went just before we invaded.
By boxed in I meant that we created the parameters in which he could project his power (Kuwait and Kurdistan would be examples of limit areas) and any military developments of any size that we didn't approve of we could locate from the sky and take out when we chose and that's what we did.
I seriously doubt that if he had moved any WMDs out of the country some evidence wouldn't have shown up by now. Your opinion strikes me as last gasp die hard thinking. I think the general consensus is that Saddam ordered all WMDs destroyed after 92, I believe. We certainly have testimony to that affect from some of his senior advisors and we have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
QUOTE
Dingo:
He got squat all right. He got full access to the country. It seems to me you're not factoring in a basic point. Why couldn't Hussein simply falsify the record of WMD destruction, particularly the bio stuff and hide them? If I wanted to keep them around and avoid detection that's what I would do. The truth is the coalition and the inspectors held most of the cards and were quite capable of satisfying themselves that no major WMD operations were going on. Hell we had over flights and were taking pictures right and left. That's how Powell came up with those false pictures at the UN of those supposed bioweapons trucks. That was the stuff the inspectors were immanently qualified to inspect and did when we gave them the locations of suspicious sites.
He got squat all right. He got full access to the country. It seems to me you're not factoring in a basic point. Why couldn't Hussein simply falsify the record of WMD destruction, particularly the bio stuff and hide them? If I wanted to keep them around and avoid detection that's what I would do. The truth is the coalition and the inspectors held most of the cards and were quite capable of satisfying themselves that no major WMD operations were going on. Hell we had over flights and were taking pictures right and left. That's how Powell came up with those false pictures at the UN of those supposed bioweapons trucks. That was the stuff the inspectors were immanently qualified to inspect and did when we gave them the locations of suspicious sites.
If you look back to 1991 you will see that the reason Iraq admitted to actually having WMD is that we found numerous records proving the WMD were produced and in what quantities. You can easily see this in Blix statements and questions and this is the key subject of the 12,000 page document referred to by Blix.
See (below and) this link: http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/mar03/middleEast.asp
“If war comes, the United States and its coalition partners will target as much of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs as they can. Given the extent of Iraq's concealment efforts, however, it will be impossible to be confident that all key sites have been identified or that they have been fully destroyed by military strikes. For this reason, U.S. objectives in a post-war Iraq include locating and destroying any remaining Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). To be sure that Iraq is disarmed of its existing stocks of and potential to produce WMD will require the resumption of inspections.
The first step after a war, therefore, will be to find out where Iraq kept records of its WMD activities. Inspections will be necessary to verify whether details in the records are accurate, and if site visits reveal that inventories do not match written records then further inspection work will be needed. Even more problematic, the records of Iraq's WMD programs are unlikely to be complete, either because Iraq never kept complete records or because key documents were destroyed or are never located."
Iraq could not have destroyed the WMD with out a paper trail that would not have been easy to destroy even if they wanted to. It would have taken, men, money , and equipment to do and would have left residue non of which Iraq would reveal.
As far as over flights they had minimal value. If you remember Iraq refused to allow UAVs and aa we know you cannot see inside buildings or vehicles from space or aircraft. This IMO is how we lost the WMD in the first place.
QUOTE
Since I don't know how many bunkers we knew about or what their practical capability was as hide outs for WMDs I really can't comment. My own instinct would be to let the inspectors inspect and since they were the experts let them make the determination as to whether there was a threat. Why take the word subsequently of David Kay and not the inspectors?
The German company that build the Bunkers for Melosovitch build the same type for Iraq. The one in Serbia was big enough to hold planes and large vehicles as well as men. We don’t know what was there but the fact that the UN never looked underground and had no idea of where the underground facilities were tell you how hopeless the task was.
QUOTE
By boxed in I meant that we created the parameters in which he could project his power (Kuwait and Kurdistan would be examples of limit areas) and any military developments of any size that we didn't approve of we could locate from the sky and take out when we chose and that's what we did.
I seriously doubt that if he had moved any WMDs out of the country some evidence wouldn't have shown up by now
I seriously doubt that if he had moved any WMDs out of the country some evidence wouldn't have shown up by now
But what was the PLAN. No inspectors since 1998 and a UN that was obviously paid off. As the ISG report states clearly Iraq was sitting back and paying off until the day the France or their other buddies got the sanctions drpped and then they were back in business. I wish we had waited longer but there is no evidence the inspections would have found anything and Saddam was clearly not going to cooperate.
I remember a BBC documentary dealing with Blix in Iraq. He was in an Iraqi plant and in a large room capable of producing chemical weapons. He comments were: “as you can see this lab, like other we have seen, has been scrubbed clean, and over here is a piece of “dual use equipment” that could be used to produce chemical weapons and right here is where the key part of this machine was that could have told us how the machine was used. As you can see that piece is missing”
IMO the bottom line is billions of dollars and thousands of people did not produce nothing and Saddam was no the type of leader to just toss it away. He could have easily moved it and I don’t see the why any country or group that got it would just bring it forward – do yo??? WHY??
In fact this is the greatest failure of the war and IMO the liberals are letting Bush off easy. The real story is the WMD slipped out of the country! And you can see why the administration is not going to push that line of thought. What could be worse than to let a major reason for the war slip away? Which IMO is exactly what happened.
Here is another interesting quote from your link. It suggests a further reason why our invasion of Iraq was not a good move; the cooperation of the Iraqis and the credibility of what might have been found. *Just a little note. Using the quote function rather than "....." is considered proper protocol around here for anything more than brief statements, I believe.
Ted, it seems to me your whole argument is based on hypotheticals rather than hard evidence. I simply don't agree that the lack of a paper trail proves anything. It leaves a suspicion, yes. Therefore further inspection was necessary and even a stepped up variety. Obviously a small quantity of say weapon's grade anthrax could be squirreled away somewhere inside or outside the country but as for large WMD operations of say the nuclear variety too much "stuff" and too many people would have to be involved. Somebody would have spilled the beans by now. You know the line "Money talks ***** walks." lol. That last line covers the oil for food scandal too. Otherswise, as I said, paying people off is a red herring when we are dealing with issues of evidence of WMDs.
Parenthetically the terror that spread the greatest fear here during the time around 911 was the anthrax mailings, if you recall. Apparently the FBI thought they had their man, a local guy named Dr. Hatfill, but they were unable to corroborate their suspicions. They are satisfied the attack was from an American source, probably someone who was trying to deliver a message as to the danger we are in from a major version of such an attack.
Hmmm, the anthrax mailing, Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber; maybe we should get some more inspectors working our side of the fence.
QUOTE
The Bush administration is apparently considering putting U.S. military and intelligence personnel in charge of such efforts. Such a choice, however, has disadvantages. A new U.S. team would take time to get up to speed, and valuable time would be lost before the U.S. team gained the experience and knowledge that the current inspectors have. In addition, American military and CIA personnel would make especially attractive targets for anti-U.S. forces in the region. The U.S. government might decide that it does not want to expose its personnel to the risk and that a UN team would not face as much danger and hostility. The greatest problem, however, is that a U.S. team, especially one containing intelligence agents, might arouse suspicions that would increase Iraqi resistance to cooperating and complicate relations with other Arab states. Some people in the region and elsewhere who oppose a war remain skeptical that Iraq even possesses WMD, and they might charge that any stockpiles or facilities uncovered by U.S. military or CIA personnel were planted there. Such charges would be less credible if an international team under UN auspices makes the initial visits to new sites.
Ted, it seems to me your whole argument is based on hypotheticals rather than hard evidence. I simply don't agree that the lack of a paper trail proves anything. It leaves a suspicion, yes. Therefore further inspection was necessary and even a stepped up variety. Obviously a small quantity of say weapon's grade anthrax could be squirreled away somewhere inside or outside the country but as for large WMD operations of say the nuclear variety too much "stuff" and too many people would have to be involved. Somebody would have spilled the beans by now. You know the line "Money talks ***** walks." lol. That last line covers the oil for food scandal too. Otherswise, as I said, paying people off is a red herring when we are dealing with issues of evidence of WMDs.
Parenthetically the terror that spread the greatest fear here during the time around 911 was the anthrax mailings, if you recall. Apparently the FBI thought they had their man, a local guy named Dr. Hatfill, but they were unable to corroborate their suspicions. They are satisfied the attack was from an American source, probably someone who was trying to deliver a message as to the danger we are in from a major version of such an attack.
Hmmm, the anthrax mailing, Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber; maybe we should get some more inspectors working our side of the fence.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Dec 22 2005, 05:06 PM)
Ted, it seems to me your whole argument is based on hypotheticals rather than hard evidence. I simply don't agree that the lack of a paper trail proves anything. It leaves a suspicion, yes. Therefore further inspection was necessary and even a stepped up variety. Obviously a small quantity of say weapon's grade anthrax could be squirreled away somewhere inside or outside the country but as for large WMD operations of say the nuclear variety too much "stuff" and too many people would have to be involved. Somebody would have spilled the beans by now. You know the line "Money talks ***** walks." lol. That last line covers the oil for food scandal too. Otherswise, as I said, paying people off is a red herring when we are dealing with issues of evidence of WMDs.
Parenthetically the terror that spread the greatest fear here during the time around 911 was the anthrax mailings, if you recall. Apparently the FBI thought they had their man, a local guy named Dr. Hatfill, but they were unable to corroborate their suspicions. They are satisfied the attack was from an American source, probably someone who was trying to deliver a message as to the danger we are in from a major version of such an attack.
Hmmm, the anthrax mailing, Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber; maybe we should get some more inspectors working our side of the fence.
Parenthetically the terror that spread the greatest fear here during the time around 911 was the anthrax mailings, if you recall. Apparently the FBI thought they had their man, a local guy named Dr. Hatfill, but they were unable to corroborate their suspicions. They are satisfied the attack was from an American source, probably someone who was trying to deliver a message as to the danger we are in from a major version of such an attack.
Hmmm, the anthrax mailing, Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber; maybe we should get some more inspectors working our side of the fence.
There is little doubt the “inspectors” could do a better job than the same number of Americas. On the other hand we have far more troops and their access is unlimited and unencumbered by definition. As I have said I would have waited even though the intel given to Bush showed Saddam was dangerous and needed to be dealt with.
As far as my whole argument being “based on hypotheticals rather than hard evidence”
I think the opposite is true. As I have posted (and I leave out CIA and Bush here because then we get into the endless “hyped argument) Blix was clear on what he felt Iraq had to account for and we are not talking about small quantities of anything. I contrast your argument is “if we cannot find it it did not exist” which is as hypothetical as it gets. And I am not speaking about nuclear which I think he only had technical data on after 1991. The chemical and biological weapons listed below by blix could have killed MILLIONS of people. If you can show me any proof that it never existed or was destroyed please post it. We know this proof does not exist because if it did there would have been no war.
Blix said:
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.
Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.
Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.
THIS is the best intel in the world at the time and most of the intel Bush used to make his decision. If it was wrong then he was misled by it.
IMO it was not wrong.
Since Blix seems to be the center piece of the argument of Iraq's imminent threat to the US it might be interesting to see what Blix had to say about the US invasion.
Blix calls invasion unjustified
This argument of the Bush administration should sound familiar to you Ted. Obviously Blix was less impressed.
On those famous UN photos that Powell offered "proving" WMD laboratory trucks in Iraq, Blix dismissed them.
On the matter of the uranium oxide contract from Niger.
Finally on the Bush administration's rush to war, Blix had this to say.
In my opinion Bush rushed to war on very bad or incomplete intelligence and Blix appears to agree.
Blix calls invasion unjustified
This argument of the Bush administration should sound familiar to you Ted. Obviously Blix was less impressed.
QUOTE
Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."
On those famous UN photos that Powell offered "proving" WMD laboratory trucks in Iraq, Blix dismissed them.
QUOTE
"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."
On the matter of the uranium oxide contract from Niger.
QUOTE
The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.
"The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it," Blix said. "And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery."
"The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it," Blix said. "And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery."
Finally on the Bush administration's rush to war, Blix had this to say.
QUOTE
"I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.
In my opinion Bush rushed to war on very bad or incomplete intelligence and Blix appears to agree.
QUOTE
Dingo
Since Blix seems to be the center piece of the argument of Iraq's imminent threat to the US it might be interesting to see what Blix had to say about the US invasion.
Blix calls invasion unjustified
This argument of the Bush administration should sound familiar to you Ted. Obviously Blix was less impressed.
Since Blix seems to be the center piece of the argument of Iraq's imminent threat to the US it might be interesting to see what Blix had to say about the US invasion.
Blix calls invasion unjustified
This argument of the Bush administration should sound familiar to you Ted. Obviously Blix was less impressed.
Last I checked Blix did not make decisions on our security and you should know as well as I that Bush never used the “I” word.
If you read Blix before he lost his job – (see my posts) you will see a man who had the same concerns we did.
QUOTE
I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.
I tend to agree with Blix here. Certainly the picture was gray with so much unaccounted for but UN 1441 was clear in saying that Iraq MUST bring out the WMD or the proof they destroyed them. And as we know now they had the UN and Security council paid off so that Iraq could be confidant that a vote to actually “enforce” the sanctions was not coming.
The Niger story was a minor part of the threat. What they would have gotten there was only the precursor to Uranium needed for a bomb – which, as the Dulfer report said – they were determined to HAVE after Sanctions were dropped.
Bottom line is Bush had plenty of reason to fear Iraq's WMD based on the best intel available which was Blix’s reports to the UN which was the sum total of all intel inside Iraq from 1991 – 2002.
I would have waited longer but with the UN corrupted you must admit it would have only been a matter of time.
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 27 2005, 07:55 AM)
Last I checked Blix did not make decisions on our security
Who said he did?
QUOTE
you should know as well as I that Bush never used the “I” word.
I don't have a clue what you mean by that. Just for the record this was a man who is notorious for saying he makes gut based personal political decisions, prompted often by God, and in my recollection uses the word "I" frequently in his speeches.
QUOTE
If you read Blix before he lost his job – (see my posts) you will see a man who had the same concerns we did.
Concerns yes. And he intelligently saw that the rational response to those concerns was more inspections.
QUOTE
UN 1441 was clear in saying that Iraq MUST bring out the WMD or the proof they destroyed them.
Or go to war as a consequence of not exposing the WMDs or the proof of them being destroyed? Hardly. The inspectors were our ace in the hole, that and other forms of surveillance and intelligence.
QUOTE
And as we know now they had the UN and Security council paid off so that Iraq could be confidant that a vote to actually “enforce” the sanctions was not coming.
The sanctions for all practical purposes worked and was working. Side deals, smuggling etc., go on all over the world and are going on now with American tax payers money in Iraq. The point is there were no provable WMDs being brought into the picture.
QUOTE
The Niger story was a minor part of the threat. What they would have gotten there was only the precursor to Uranium needed for a bomb – which, as the Dulfer report said – they were determined to HAVE after Sanctions were dropped.
Let's see we support Pakistan who was exporting nuclear capability to hell and back and support Saudi Arabia who was the leading exporter of international terrorism to our country and around the world and we go to war against a dictator who is a known enemy of Al Qaeda and by our own estimates has a nuclear capability that is at best 5 years away without sanctions. That sure makes sense.
QUOTE
Bottom line is Bush had plenty of reason to fear Iraq's WMD based on the best intel available which was Blix’s reports to the UN which was the sum total of all intel inside Iraq from 1991 – 2002.
As bad as he was, Saddam served American interests through most of his career and was a bulwark against the international terrorist crowd. He represented no provable threat to this country and was quite contained. The latter was interestingly the expressed view of both Powell and Rice directly before 911. 911 changed a lot of perspectives rather suddenly. Neocons with their PNAC agenda seemed to have found the opportunity they needed and the next day the Iraq project was on. The evidence conveniently fell into place as often good evidence was put on the bottom of the pile and the bad evidence was pushed to the front. Saddam's lack of records of WMDs being destroyed was not a reason for invasion. It was a convenient excuse to push something that was already in the long term plan; the invasion of Iraq to bring about regime change that was more sympathetic to our concerns and to establish a launching point for further campaigns for, approved in the US, regime change in places like Iran and other Muslim states.
QUOTE
QUOTE
you should know as well as I that Bush never used the “I” word.
I don't have a clue what you mean by that. Just for the record this was a man who is notorious for saying he makes gut based personal political decisions, prompted often by God, and in my recollection uses the word "I" frequently in his speeches.
you should know as well as I that Bush never used the “I” word.
I don't have a clue what you mean by that. Just for the record this was a man who is notorious for saying he makes gut based personal political decisions, prompted often by God, and in my recollection uses the word "I" frequently in his speeches.
You implied Bush said Iraq was an “immanent” threat and he never said that. If you think he did then find it.
QUOTE
QUOTE
If you read Blix before he lost his job – (see my posts) you will see a man who had the same concerns we did.
Concerns yes. And he intelligently saw that the rational response to those concerns was more inspections.
If you read Blix before he lost his job – (see my posts) you will see a man who had the same concerns we did.
Concerns yes. And he intelligently saw that the rational response to those concerns was more inspections.
More inspections that could have gone on for years. I would have waited a few more months but lets remember the only reason Blix was there at all was our troops on his border. This is why the administration insisted that 1441 be structured to compel Iraq to PROVE it destroyed it’s WMD and if you read Blix as I have posted it is clear they had no intension to do that.
QUOTE
QUOTE
And as we know now they had the UN and Security council paid off so that Iraq could be confidant that a vote to actually “enforce” the sanctions was not coming.
The sanctions for all practical purposes worked and was working. Side deals, smuggling etc., go on all over the world and are going on now with American tax payers money in Iraq. The point is there were no provable WMDs being brought into the picture.
And as we know now they had the UN and Security council paid off so that Iraq could be confidant that a vote to actually “enforce” the sanctions was not coming.
The sanctions for all practical purposes worked and was working. Side deals, smuggling etc., go on all over the world and are going on now with American tax payers money in Iraq. The point is there were no provable WMDs being brought into the picture.
I guess you have ignored the Oil For Food scandal. Iraq siphoned off 21.3 BILLION $$$$ from the program and used much of it to maintain his WMD capability and some of it to corrupt the UN and members of the Security Council like France. Little wonder Saddam never expected the US to attack. He knew the SC would not vote to use force against him. If you think inspections or sanctions worked tell me what exactly they did? Saddam moved millions of gallons of oil out of the country illegally and could just as easily have moved WMD to terrorists. And the intel said he had it. So the decision was not if but “when” to attack based on Iraq non-compliance. 12 years is a long time to wait for compliance.
QUOTE
As bad as he was, Saddam served American interests through most of his career and was a bulwark against the international terrorist crowd.
How exactly did he do that? He had AQ and other terrorists in his country. Paid the families of suicide bombers , and he was closer to the terrorist state of Syria than he ever was to the US. To think that after the first Gulf War that this man gave a damn about the US is ludicrous. IMO he would have done anything he could to hurt us – esp. if he could do it without it being traced back to him.
QUOTE
Saddam's lack of records of WMDs being destroyed was not a reason for invasion
NOT lack of records but lack of compliance with 1441. There is NO WAY the man could have destroyed the WMD he ADMITTED to having without some record of it as Blix said to the UN. This was just more of the same non-compliance that goes back 12 years.
Bottom line on intel was that there was no need to “stack the deck” since the deck was loaded with questions and concerns about massive WMD (and programs to make more) in Iraq.
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 29 2005, 09:55 AM)
You implied Bush said Iraq was an “immanent” threat and he never said that. If you think he did then find it.
The Bush Administration most certainly did call Iraq an "imminent threat".
QUOTE
"This is about imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
QUOTE
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
QUOTE
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
While Bush himself never actually used the word "imminent", he did imply imminence through the use of phrases like "unique urgency".
But to imply that the Bush Administration never called Iraq an "imminent threat" is ridiculous.
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 29 2005, 08:55 AM)
You implied Bush said Iraq was an “immanent” threat and he never said that. If you think he did then find it.
Entspeak has spoken quite adequately to that. I might add the imminent mushroom cloud that was looming on the horizon.
QUOTE
More inspections that could have gone on for years.
Better than war and occupation. My own guess is the inspections would have been switched over to being periodic. If the inspectors couldn't find any WMDs after 5 years of potential accumulation it would be a reasonable guess that Hussein probably was waiting for sanctions to end at a minimum.
QUOTE
This is why the administration insisted that 1441 be structured to compel Iraq to PROVE it destroyed it’s WMD and if you read Blix as I have posted it is clear they had no intension to do that.
No rational country goes to war because of bad record keeping. Once again, the inspectors were our backup.
QUOTE
And as we know now they had the UN and Security council paid off so that Iraq could be confidant that a vote to actually “enforce” the sanctions was not coming.
I think you need to detail that out. If a situation arose where Hussein was credibly shown to be back in the WMD business, which was not shown when we invaded, then we would confront the issue at that time.
QUOTE
I guess you have ignored the Oil For Food scandal.
No I haven't. I simply pointed out that corruption is universal and going on right now in Iraq and is not an excuse to go to war.
QUOTE
Iraq siphoned off 21.3 BILLION $$$$ from the program and used much of it to maintain his WMD capability
This goes right to the heart of our problem in this discussion. You persist in the myth that Hussein was in the WMDs business. We can argue evidence but it is impossible to argue an unsupported mind set.
QUOTE
He knew the SC would not vote to use force against him.
Presumably on that point he was rational. He assumed that inspections which had exposed his game the first time would credibly show the truth. He had no WMDs. At some point proximate to the invasion they probably figured out otherwise as the Baathists began to organize a post invasion resistance and reached out to their former enemies, the Jihadists. It took us to bring them together.
QUOTE
If you think inspections or sanctions worked tell me what exactly they did?
We also had some inspections of goods going into the country along with air surveilance. How did we find out about the aluminum tubing? Countries like France had much more of a stake in keeping WMDs out of the hands of Iraq than limiting their illegal oil sales. One form of corruption does not necessarily equal another form of corruption.
.
QUOTE
Dingo. As bad as he was, Saddam served American interests through most of his career and was a bulwark against the international terrorist crowd.
QUOTE
How exactly did he do that? He had AQ and other terrorists in his country.
I think we are going over the same territory. Zarqawi and company were operating in Kurdistan, under Kurdish-American control, and, as I pointed out and you chose to ignore, we had 3 opportunities to take out his chemical warfare manufacturing operations and perhaps him and chose not to because it might distract from our impending invasion of Iraq. The irony is not only mind blowing but instructive I believe. Terrorism took a back seat to regime change and nation building.
QUOTE
Paid the families of suicide bombers
These were not international terrorists. They were Palestinian nationalists. The difference between Hamas and Al Qaeda has always been well understood and has always involved a different political stance. Our buddy Saudi Arabia was an even bigger supporter of the Palestinian nationalists.
QUOTE
Bottom line on intel was that there was no need to “stack the deck” since the deck was loaded with questions and concerns about massive WMD (and programs to make more) in Iraq.
Bottom line was the good intel definitely made it necessary to stack the deck by skewing the "evidence" in a paranoid direction. Yes questions were raised legitimately in this and the previous administration. Questions are not an excuse for war. They are a reason for inspections.
QUOTE
Dingo
Better than war and occupation. My own guess is the inspections would have been switched over to being periodic. If the inspectors couldn't find any WMDs after 5 years of potential accumulation it would be a reasonable guess that Hussein probably was waiting for sanctions to end at a minimum.
Better than war and occupation. My own guess is the inspections would have been switched over to being periodic. If the inspectors couldn't find any WMDs after 5 years of potential accumulation it would be a reasonable guess that Hussein probably was waiting for sanctions to end at a minimum.
Sanctions would have been dropped before that. If fact France requested that the sanctions be dropped in 1999! The grim reality was that much of the Security Council (France, Russia) were more concerned about the contracts they could win in Iraq than they were about Iraq’s lack of compliance with UN Resolutions. Remember Inspectors were only there in 2002 because we had troops on the border.
QUOTE
No rational country goes to war because of bad record keeping. Once again, the inspectors were our backup.
NOT bad record keeping – NON Compliance with UN Resolutions. Iraq never complied with a single resolution in 12 years! 1441 was the last straw.
QUOTE
I guess you have ignored the Oil For Food scandal.
No I haven't. I simply pointed out that corruption is universal and going on right now in Iraq and is not an excuse to go to war.
This goes right to the heart of our problem in this discussion. You persist in the myth that Hussein was in the WMDs business. We can argue evidence but it is impossible to argue an unsupported mind set.
No I haven't. I simply pointed out that corruption is universal and going on right now in Iraq and is not an excuse to go to war.
This goes right to the heart of our problem in this discussion. You persist in the myth that Hussein was in the WMDs business. We can argue evidence but it is impossible to argue an unsupported mind set.
Ya right – it’a all the same. Big difference is this corruption insured Saddam that he would never have to comply with any UN Resolution and explains why France was lobbying to drop the Sanctions in 1999. IMO this was the cause for the war. Saddam felt he was safe from UN enforcement – he PAID for it.
WMD Myth???? Have you read any of Blix, Butler or ISG? Was the 12,000 page document a Myth? You are dreaming or just have your eyes firmly shut.
QUOTE
Bottom line was the good intel definitely made it necessary to stack the deck by skewing the "evidence" in a paranoid direction. Yes questions were raised legitimately in this and the previous administration. Questions are not an excuse for war. They are a reason for inspections
Any “paranoid direction” is firmly supported by statements by Blix to the UN. Forget what Bush said, forget Niger etc. – have you read what Blix said to the UN? Plenty there to justify moving on Iraq.
Here is just 1 Blix quote:
As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. (enough to kill millions of people - Ted comment).
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 5 2006, 11:40 AM)
The grim reality was that much of the Security Council (France, Russia) were more concerned about the contracts they could win in Iraq than they were about Iraq’s lack of compliance with UN Resolutions. Remember Inspectors were only there in 2002 because we had troops on the border.
The simple fact is we had no evidence of WMDs. Shortly before 911 both Rice and Powell are on record as saying as much and asserting Iraq's condition of military weakness. Another fact that is overlooked and was brought up by, among others, former inspector Scott Ritter is we were using inspectors as a cover for intelligence agents and that was the pretext for Hussein ending the inspections in 1998. Hussein wasn't the only one not playing by the rules. We were determined upon regime change and Hussein undoubtedly knew it and didn't propose to commit suicide. No doubt the troops did make a difference in getting the inspectors in but we simply don't know what kind of cooperation we would have gotten if we hadn't been pursuing the regime change imperative.
QUOTE
NOT bad record keeping – NON Compliance with UN Resolutions. Iraq never complied with a single resolution in 12 years! 1441 was the last straw.
Come on! The only specific arguments you have brought up are the lack of Iraqi records of claimed WMD destruction.
QUOTE
Saddam felt he was safe from UN enforcement – he PAID for it.
I don't know what he felt. I don't think he felt safe from much of anything judging from the fact that he kept changing his sleeping quarters. I'd say he was under pretty severe scrutiny although he could dodge and bribe around some of it.
QUOTE
WMD Myth???? Have you read any of Blix, Butler or ISG? Was the 12,000 page document a Myth? You are dreaming or just have your eyes firmly shut.
Well between Hans Blix and David Kay coming up with nothing I'd say myth is a pretty good word. The important point is they had no hard evidence going in. If I wanted to put one over on a bunch of Inspectors, as I said before, I'd falsify a paper trail of WMD destruction and then squirrel them away some where.
QUOTE
Any “paranoid direction” is firmly supported by statements by Blix to the UN. Forget what Bush said, forget Niger etc. – have you read what Blix said to the UN? Plenty there to justify moving on Iraq.
It all comes down to a lack of records and Blix made it quite clear that the inspections should have continued nevertheless and he saw no justification for invading and occupying.
There are plenty of countries that have demonstrated a potentially bigger threat to this country that we did not invade. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, N. Korea and even some home grown operators like the American anthrax-in-the-mail guy using made-in-America germs to spread terror here. In Iraq we took our eye off the ball and now are weaker, tied down by an insurgency that shows no slackening and in dangerous ways less respected by allies we need to cooperate with.
To further the matter of the Iraqi terrorist threat being part of manipulated intelligence here is a recent source. This is a commentary on a book by a liberal hawk generally sympathetic to the BA's Iraqi policies and who had sufficient confidence from many of the BA officials to get an inside view of what was going on.
QUOTE
An inside look at the BA, including their intelligence operations
it is necessary to remember that the squeezing of murky intelligence data to fit a preconceived pattern was the work of men for whom the concept of the war had been marinating a long time, well before the dubious reports of Saddam’s purchase of yellowcake and plans for aluminum tubes.
------------------------------------
Wurmser joined Douglas Feith’s Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, which collected raw data from Iraqi defectors in order to prove that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda and would give WMD to terrorists. Later he worked for John Bolton before moving on to Cheney’s office. His and Feith’s work in intelligence gathering involved taking data that had been dismissed by the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the State Department and fashioning it into bullet points and PowerPoint slides and piping it into the White House, where the Pentagon neocons had allies in Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Packer concludes, “this configuration of like-minded officials dispersed on key islands across the national-security archipelago allowed the intelligence ‘product’ … to circumvent the normal interagency process, in which the unconverted … might have raised objections. It was an efficient way of working if you knew what you wanted to achieve.”
it is necessary to remember that the squeezing of murky intelligence data to fit a preconceived pattern was the work of men for whom the concept of the war had been marinating a long time, well before the dubious reports of Saddam’s purchase of yellowcake and plans for aluminum tubes.
------------------------------------
Wurmser joined Douglas Feith’s Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, which collected raw data from Iraqi defectors in order to prove that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda and would give WMD to terrorists. Later he worked for John Bolton before moving on to Cheney’s office. His and Feith’s work in intelligence gathering involved taking data that had been dismissed by the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the State Department and fashioning it into bullet points and PowerPoint slides and piping it into the White House, where the Pentagon neocons had allies in Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Packer concludes, “this configuration of like-minded officials dispersed on key islands across the national-security archipelago allowed the intelligence ‘product’ … to circumvent the normal interagency process, in which the unconverted … might have raised objections. It was an efficient way of working if you knew what you wanted to achieve.”
As for some having motivations in the matter that went beyond the sphere of protecting American security interests this part is interesting.
QUOTE
For Wolfowitz, “Iraq stood for different things—an unfinished war, Arab tyranny, weapons proliferation, a strategic threat to oil, American weakness, Democratic fecklessness—and regime change there became the foreign-policy jackpot.” He is less indulgent towards Douglas Feith and David Wurmser and the “Clean Break” memorandum they, along with Richard Perle and others, prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nentanyahu in 1996. He gives “Clean Break” the most precise analysis I’ve seen in the American press, explicating it through the lens of Wurmser’s subsequent AEI-published volume, which argued (in 1999) that America’s taking out Saddam would solve Israel’s strategic problems and leave the Palestinians essentially helpless.
--------------------------
A question that puzzles me is how anyone who had drafted position papers for a foreign government could receive a security clearance, much less a top foreign-policy job, but apparently this never troubled Cheney or Rumsfeld.
--------------------------
A question that puzzles me is how anyone who had drafted position papers for a foreign government could receive a security clearance, much less a top foreign-policy job, but apparently this never troubled Cheney or Rumsfeld.
QUOTE
Dingo
The simple fact is we had no evidence of WMDs. Shortly before 911 both Rice and Powell are on record as saying as much and asserting Iraq's condition of military weakness.
The simple fact is we had no evidence of WMDs. Shortly before 911 both Rice and Powell are on record as saying as much and asserting Iraq's condition of military weakness.
You persist is making this ridiculous statement. I have posted numerous references to the tons of WMD the UN was looking for and for which to this day we have no record of being destroyed. Iraq, confronted with proof they had produced it, even admitted to it. Thus the pointed questions from Blix.
This is not the sound bite national news here. If you think “we had no evidence” then show me a UN statement from any time that says this. All that was EVER said was Saddam “MAY” have destroyed his vast stocks of WMD which is one hell of a long way from not having it.
QUOTE
Well between Hans Blix and David Kay coming up with nothing I'd say myth is a pretty good word. The important point is they had no hard evidence going in. If I wanted to put one over on a bunch of Inspectors, as I said before, I'd falsify a paper trail of WMD destruction and then squirrel them away some where.
Again you are dead wrong. What do you think was the subject of the 12,000 page report? Saddam spent BILLIONS on WMD and to think he got very little for that is ludicrous especially since he admitted to having tons of it.
QUOTE
There are plenty of countries that have demonstrated a potentially bigger threat to this country that we did not invade. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, N. Korea
I agree we could have, and should have let the inspectors work longer. Part of the problem was 100,000 men sitting in Kuwait. IMO the result would have been the same,Saddam never complied and wasn’t about to, and his paid off buddies in the Security Council were clearly behind him. As far as other threats Saddam was unique in that he had USED WMD against a neighbor and even to kill thousands in his own country AND he was right in the middle of more than ½ the world’s oil. He needed to be dealt with and IMO the UN was never going to do that.
QUOTE
For Wolfowitz, “Iraq stood for different things—an unfinished war, Arab tyranny, weapons proliferation, a strategic threat to oil, American weakness, Democratic fecklessness—and regime change there became the foreign-policy jackpot
Let’s remember that Dems gave Clinton the asked for go ahead for “regime change” in 1998 – when, according to them, Iraq was one of the most dangerous countries in the world with massive WMD. Bush inherited all of this. I could never figure out why Bill just allowed Iraq to fester. I guess his other problems overshadowed it.
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 9 2006, 07:10 AM)
QUOTE
Dingo
The simple fact is we had no evidence of WMDs. Shortly before 911 both Rice and Powell are on record as saying as much and asserting Iraq's condition of military weakness.
The simple fact is we had no evidence of WMDs. Shortly before 911 both Rice and Powell are on record as saying as much and asserting Iraq's condition of military weakness.
You persist is making this ridiculous statement. I have posted numerous references to the tons of WMD the UN was looking for and for which to this day we have no record of being destroyed. Iraq, confronted with proof they had produced it, even admitted to it. Thus the pointed questions from Blix.
This is not the sound bite national news here. If you think “we had no evidence” then show me a UN statement from any time that says this. All that was EVER said was Saddam “MAY” have destroyed his vast stocks of WMD which is one hell of a long way from not having it.
QUOTE
Well between Hans Blix and David Kay coming up with nothing I'd say myth is a pretty good word. The important point is they had no hard evidence going in. If I wanted to put one over on a bunch of Inspectors, as I said before, I'd falsify a paper trail of WMD destruction and then squirrel them away some where.
Again you are dead wrong. What do you think was the subject of the 12,000 page report? Saddam spent BILLIONS on WMD and to think he got very little for that is ludicrous especially since he admitted to having tons of it.
Ted, I'm talking about the lack of positive evidence at the time of the invasion - recent pictures, solid eyewitness accounts as to the particulars, including time and place. That involves a tangible present fact not a past condition. And when did he admit he had tons of it after 1992? Let me ask you a question. Suppose you were SH and you had destroyed the WMDs but for whatever reason you had not left a paper trail. How would you prove you had no WMDs? Bring in the inspectors right? Requiring someone to prove a negative (IE we don't have them) is well known to be a disingenuous way to argue a case. Fortunately Blix appeared to appreciate that which is, I'm sure, one reason why he felt the inspections should continue.
QUOTE
He needed to be dealt with and IMO the UN was never going to do that.
Well they gave authorization for Gulf War 1. Maybe they didn't this time because they were showing wisdom. As it turned out they were manifestly right in withholding authorization for an invasion and occupation.
QUOTE
QUOTE
For Wolfowitz, “Iraq stood for different things—an unfinished war, Arab tyranny, weapons proliferation, a strategic threat to oil, American weakness, Democratic fecklessness—and regime change there became the foreign-policy jackpot
Let’s remember that Dems gave Clinton the asked for go ahead for “regime change” in 1998 – when, according to them, Iraq was one of the most dangerous countries in the world with massive WMD. Bush inherited all of this. I could never figure out why Bill just allowed Iraq to fester. I guess his other problems overshadowed it.
They did give Clinton authorization for "regime change" and I think that was a mistake. Bad as SH was he was also actively and even ruthlessly opposed to the international Jihadists who wanted his head. I think letting the Iraqi army know that we would not be displeased with a change was fair. Probably that's how Clinton and Bush 1 thought regime change would play out. I think if we were in the ICC, which we boycotted, it would be appropriate to bring him up on international charges of crimes against humanity. I also think we might have been able to negotiate some kind of deal with him to ease sanctions if he would accept a permanent inspection group and not employ WMDs etc. In that case he would want to make sure we weren't mixing in undercover spies again, which I think would have been fair. There were alternatives to war but I don't think this administration had much interest in them, which in my mind helps explain their stacking the evidence.
The critical quotes I was interested in did not so much include the one off the top that you offered. It's the observations below it that caught my eye. They suggested that there were some in critical intelligence positions who may not have had America's security interests as paramount in their thinking.
QUOTE
He is less indulgent towards Douglas Feith and David Wurmser and the “Clean Break” memorandum they, along with Richard Perle and others, prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nentanyahu in 1996. He gives “Clean Break” the most precise analysis I’ve seen in the American press, explicating it through the lens of Wurmser’s subsequent AEI-published volume, which argued (in 1999) that America’s taking out Saddam would solve Israel’s strategic problems and leave the Palestinians essentially helpless.
--------------------------
A question that puzzles me is how anyone who had drafted position papers for a foreign government could receive a security clearance, much less a top foreign-policy job, but apparently this never troubled Cheney or Rumsfeld.
--------------------------
A question that puzzles me is how anyone who had drafted position papers for a foreign government could receive a security clearance, much less a top foreign-policy job, but apparently this never troubled Cheney or Rumsfeld.
QUOTE
Dingo
Ted, I'm talking about the lack of positive evidence at the time of the invasion - recent pictures, solid eyewitness accounts as to the particulars, including time and place. That involves a tangible present fact not a past condition. And when did he admit he had tons of it after 1992? Let me ask you a question. Suppose you were SH and you had destroyed the WMDs but for whatever reason you had not left a paper trail. How would you prove you had no WMDs? Bring in the inspectors right? Requiring someone to prove a negative (IE we don't have them) is well known to be a disingenuous way to argue a case. Fortunately Blix appeared to appreciate that which is, I'm sure, one reason why he felt the inspections should continue.
Ted, I'm talking about the lack of positive evidence at the time of the invasion - recent pictures, solid eyewitness accounts as to the particulars, including time and place. That involves a tangible present fact not a past condition. And when did he admit he had tons of it after 1992? Let me ask you a question. Suppose you were SH and you had destroyed the WMDs but for whatever reason you had not left a paper trail. How would you prove you had no WMDs? Bring in the inspectors right? Requiring someone to prove a negative (IE we don't have them) is well known to be a disingenuous way to argue a case. Fortunately Blix appeared to appreciate that which is, I'm sure, one reason why he felt the inspections should continue.
Lets end our discussion on this subject here. You obviously have not read Butler, Blix or the Resolutions.
In 1991 Iraq claimed to have NO, nuclear, biological or chemical WMD or facilities to produce them. They later changed their tune when Butler’s inspectors, albeit with much resistance, found all of these including evidence that Iraq HAD produced substantial quantities of WMD. If you read Butler you will learn that this was possible because Iraq keep very detailed written records. Faced with their own documents Iraq ADMITTED to have produced the massive amounts of WMD outlined by Butler and later Blix. From day 1 Iraq was REQUIRED by UN resolution to bring these WMD to the UN for JOINT inventory and destruction. Instead Iraq claims they unilaterally destroyed the WMD and all the proof of same. Blix did not believe this nonsense as I have quoted. Clinton didn’t either. I find it amusing that Dems believed Clinton but now think Bush acting of virtually the same info is wrong.
Iraq was required to bring out the WMD or show proof he destroyed them. There is no way he could have destroyed them without leaving residue, using people and money. He did not do it. He did not meet the requirements of a single UN resolution in 12 years. You mention 1992 – well if Iraq destroyed anything then and reported it then as required it would have been easy to verify. Then of course there is the tons of bacterial grown media in 1995. As Blix said “enough to make 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax. As Butler says below this was a “test case” for the UN in dealing with rogue states who attack neighbors and use WMD. The UN failed and as we know today had been essentially paid off.
IMO Iraq either hid very well or moved the WMD. We may never discover where they went. The UN faced with over 10 years of lies and non compliance had the duty to act and did not. We could have waited but IMO results would have been the same.
I have some quotes from Butler below. As you can see he did not buy the lies either.
Ambassador Richard Butler, chief of UNSCOM, told representatives of
more than 50 American Jewish organizations that UNSCOM is looking for
about 45 "truly serious" warheads that had been filled with chemical
or biological weapons and remain unaccounted for seven years after the
Gulf War.
In the chemical weapons area UNSCOM has destroyed "a very substantial
portion of the production equipment with which Iraq made a dazzling
array and quantity of chemical weapons, but we are not at the end,
particularly on (the chemical agent) VX," Butler said.
Iraq's record on biological weapons is "pathetic," Butler said. "For
four and a half years Iraq flatly denied having any. When we
confronted them with compelling evidence to the contrary they then
admitted that they had a program, but sought to minimize its nature
and extent."
"We have never received from Iraq an even remotely credible account of
its biological weapons program in comparison with what our evidence
says is the case," he said.
Butler called "propaganda" Iraq's attempts to shift the focus from
UNSCOM's work to complaints about UNSCOM policies and charges that its
inspectors work for various spy agencies, or excuses that the U.S.
will never allow sanctions to be lifted.
"The fact is that Iraq created a quantity and quality of weapons of
mass destruction that, when one thinks of the size of the industrial
base, etc., was virtually unique, breathtaking in its scope and its
danger to its region and population beyond," Butler said.
"The Council has asserted that Iraq is a test case...that lays down
the principle for the kind of world we want to live in and create a
mechanism to insure that be able to be achieved," he said
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 10 2006, 07:05 AM)
QUOTE
Dingo
Ted, I'm talking about the lack of positive evidence at the time of the invasion - recent pictures, solid eyewitness accounts as to the particulars, including time and place. That involves a tangible present fact not a past condition. And when did he admit he had tons of it after 1992? Let me ask you a question. Suppose you were SH and you had destroyed the WMDs but for whatever reason you had not left a paper trail. How would you prove you had no WMDs? Bring in the inspectors right? Requiring someone to prove a negative (IE we don't have them) is well known to be a disingenuous way to argue a case. Fortunately Blix appeared to appreciate that which is, I'm sure, one reason why he felt the
Ted, I'm talking about the lack of positive evidence at the time of the invasion - recent pictures, solid eyewitness accounts as to the particulars, including time and place. That involves a tangible present fact not a past condition. And when did he admit he had tons of it after 1992? Let me ask you a question. Suppose you were SH and you had destroyed the WMDs but for whatever reason you had not left a paper trail. How would you prove you had no WMDs? Bring in the inspectors right? Requiring someone to prove a negative (IE we don't have them) is well known to be a disingenuous way to argue a case. Fortunately Blix appeared to appreciate that which is, I'm sure, one reason why he felt the