 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > What should be the consequences for Bush re:WMD? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/16/2003 9:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | The basic point of this article is that there are important things that need to be done to ensure the future of Iraq, taking the inflating of the importance of WMDs as given but secondary.
dlw
Winning the Real War
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
ast Sunday was the most important day in Iraq since the start of the war, and maybe the most important day in its modern history. It was the first day that one could speak about the "liberation" of Iraq. It was the day that a multireligious, multiethnic Governing Council of Iraqi men and women began to assume some power and responsibility for their own country — the most representative leadership Iraq has ever had.
And what was their first act? It was to declare that April 9, the day Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, would be a national holiday. President Bush, Gen. Tommy Franks and The Weekly Standard could all call April 9 Iraq's V-E Day, but it became real only when the first representative Council of Iraqis embraced that day as their liberation. It is way too early to know whether this appointed Iraqi Council will flourish and pave the way for constitutional government and elections in Iraq, which is its assignment. It will first have to prove itself to the Iraqi people — and prove that while most Iraqis may not want us or Saddam, they do want one another. But these are not quislings, and therefore the Council's formation is a hugely important first step. This is what we came for. There is hope.
Had you been watching most American news shows or cable TV last Sunday, though, you would not have gotten a sense of this. They were focused almost exclusively on who was responsible for hyping Saddam's nuclear arms potential. This is understandable. The notion that the president may have misled the nation into war, and then blamed it on the C.I.A., is a big story.
For me, though, it is a disturbing thought that the Bush team could get itself so tied up defending its phony reasons for going to war — the notion that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that were undeterrable and could threaten us, or that he had links with Al Qaeda — that it could get distracted from fulfilling the real and valid reason for the war: to install a decent, tolerant, pluralistic, multireligious government in Iraq that would be the best answer and antidote to both Saddam and Osama.
If the Bush team wants to win the real war, it must keep its eyes on the prize and that means the following:
First, U.S. forces need to finish the war. Sorry, Mr. President, but "major combat" is not over as you declared. Because major combat never happened in the core Sunni Muslim areas of Baghdad and the Sunni triangle to the west, where 80 percent of the attacks on U.S. forces now come from. What happened instead is that two divisions of Saddam's Republican Guards, which dominated these areas, simply melted away, and are now killing U.S. troops. These regions need to be reinvaded and then showered with reconstruction funds.
Second, we must provide massive support for the new Council in Iraq to enable it to assume more powers as quickly as possible. The more power it assumes, the more it speaks for Iraq and Iraqis to the Arab world, the more it will be clear that America is the midwife of Iraq's liberation, not its occupier, and those who shoot at us are shooting down Iraq's (and the Arab world's) future. Russia, France and Germany hold most of Iraq's $60 billion in foreign debt. Most of this needs to be forgiven. The Bush team needs to get off its high horse and challenge, and reach out to, Russia, France, Germany and the Arabs — to get those who were so ready to coddle Saddam's dictatorship to support a self-governing Iraq.
Third, according to Peter Bouckaert, senior researcher for emergencies at Human Rights Watch, over 20 mass graves have already been uncovered in Iraq, and there may be as many as 90. One grave alone in Hilla is estimated to contain 10,000 people murdered by Saddam's regime. Human Rights Watch estimates that there are 300,000 people missing in Iraq. President Bush is flailing around looking for Saddam's unused weapons of mass destruction, when evidence of his actual mass destruction is all over the place in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon has done almost nothing to help Iraqis properly exhume these graves, prepare evidence for a war crimes tribunal or expose this mass murder to the world.
Eyes on the prize, please. If we find W.M.D. in Iraq, but lose Iraq, Mr. Bush will not only go down as a failed president, but one who made the world even more dangerous for Americans. If we find no W.M.D., but build a better Iraq — one that proves that a multiethnic, multireligious Arab state can rule itself in a decent way — Mr. Bush will survive his hyping of the W.M.D. issue, and the world will be a more hospitable and safer place for all Americans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/opinion/16FRIE.html
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/24/2003 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | This was taken from today's ABCNEWS "the note"
The Real World Politics
What You See Isn't Always What You Get
By Mark Halperin, Lisa Todorovich, Marc Ambinder, and David Chalian
with Teddy Davis and Alexander Blenkinsopp
W A S H I N G T O N July 24—
Today's Schedule (all times Eastern):
—10:45 am: President Bush makes remarks on jobs and growth plan, Philadelphia
—12:00 pm: Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas meets with House International Relations Committee
—12:15 pm: Vice President Cheney addresses the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC
—1:00 pm: California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante's press conference to announce the date of the recall, Sacramento
—1:00 pm: Reverend Al Sharpton visits the Liberian Mission to the UN
—2:00 pm: Press conference on 9/11 Commission Report
—2:00 pm: Senator Joe Lieberman unveils a jobs-and-taxes plan in Stratford, Connecticut
—4:15 pm: President Bush makes remarks on the economy, Livonia, Michigan
—7:30 pm: Congressman Dick Gephardt attends a meet and greet in Greenville, South Carolina
—8:05 pm: President Bush attends Bush-Cheney 2004 fundraiser, Dearborn, Michigan
NEWS SUMMARY
From Alexandra Pelosi's "Journey's with George," to HBO's upcoming "K Street," to "The Real World Paris," the public seems to have an insatiable desire to see "behind the scenes" of political life.
Or, at least, that is what the producers and editors of political journalism and entertainment believe.
On the surface, The Note has enough to cover that is right out there in the open today — Bush's critical Pennsylvania swing; the Gray "Bengal Tiger" Davis recall; Vice President Cheney's big AEI speech on security*; the 9/11 report; the FCC gurgle; everything Iraq; everything Niger; the child tax credit fight; Thomas' English Muffin; today's mixed lay-offs number.
But, as we have suggested before, we face constant competitive pressure to follow the fads and trends, and so we offer you this matching quiz.
Match each real-life event in Column A with its fictional analogue in Column B:
Column A Column B
1. Gray Davis anti-recall strategy session. 1. A Mamet play.
2. White House Niger push-back strategy session. 2. A Stuart Smalley affirmation monologue.
3. Inside Dianne Feinstein's head. 3."Austin Powers: Goldmember"
4. Darrell Issa strategy session. 4. That episode of "Three's Company" where Jack is involved in a misunderstanding.
5. Inside John Kerry's head. 5. Syndicated re-run of "Are you Hot: The Search for America's Sexiest People."
Anyway:
MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL EVENTS OF THE DAY
1. Vice President Cheney's underpromoted — but key — Washington speech on terrorism.
2. The president's economics trip to Pennsylvania and Michigan.
3. California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante's press conference.
4. The release of the 9/11 report.
5. The monitoring of the growing size of Ed Gillespie's entourage.
MOST IMPORTANT NEWSPAPER STORIES OF THE DAY
1. Dick Stevenson of the New York Times on the political health of the POTUS. LINK
2. The person who will (deservedly) become most famous via the recall, Michael Finnegan of the Los Angeles Times, describes what comes next. LINK
3. The Detroit News on the Wolverine State economy. LINK
4. Dan Balz and Walter Pincus in the Washington Post news analyzing how the president lost the Niger PR war. LINK
5. John Broder and Dean Murphy of the New York Times explore the history and ramifications of governing by voter initiatives. LINK
MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL DYNAMICS TO WATCH
1. Does the Pennsylvania and Michigan press give positive coverage of the president's trip, and how much do they focus on the economy?
2. How quickly do the major recall variables (including date and format) get resolved, and how?
3. Is the Senate Intelligence Niger investigation going to be a bipartisan search-for-the-truth, or something else?
4. How much money will be spent, and by whom, on the recall fight?
5. How big will Howard Dean's Iowa crowds be?
In California recall news today:
-- Secretary of State Kevin Shelley certifies the first recall measure of a statewide elected official in California history.
-- Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante will hold a press conference at 1:00 PM EDT to announce a date for a special election. It could take place on 9/23/03, 9/30/03, or 10/7/03.
-- The question as to whether the replacement candidates would be listed on the same ballot as the recall is still unresolved and being investigated by lawyers on all sides of the recall issue.
Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), and Representatives Porter Goss (R-Fla.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) present findings from the 9/11 Commission report on the Hill this afternoon.
Vice President Cheney speaks to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington this afternoon. (Will this be the big Cheney push-back event?)
President Bush talks about the economy in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Congressman Gephardt campaigns in South Carolina — Greenville today, Charleston tomorrow.
Governor Dean campaigns in Iowa today and tomorrow. He visits a food bank today in Iowa City, talks to undecided caucus goers in Sigourney and Ottumwa, and talks job creation with unemployed Iowans in Oskaloosa. Former Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker, Jr. will endorse him in a conference call today.
Senator Lieberman tours Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Stratford, Connecticut and unveils a jobs-and-taxes plan.
Reverend Sharpton will talk to reporters outside the Liberian Mission to the UN, where he will talk about his trip to Africa.
Senators Kerry and Edwards have no public events today.
Nor do Congressman Kucinich or Ambassador Braun.
Politics of national security, Niger:
Rather than do investigative, the Washington Post 's Balz and Pincus do a news analysis on why the White House has stayed on the defensive over Niger. LINK
They say the main two reasons are the White House's normal "protect the president at any cost" (major backfire there) and the "accidental" decision to pick a fight with the bureaucratic battlers at the CIA.
They have a lot of chronological stuff, some mea culpaing, and a bit about the pending Senate request for documents and testimony.
And oddly failing to identify Mary Matalin as involved in the current pushback (as reported in their own paper!), they have this:
"Mary Matalin, a former Bush White House adviser, said, 'It's impossible to have a consistent message when the facts keep changing. We forsook consistency for honesty, in an effort to be as forthcoming as possible in putting out new facts as they became available.'"
ABC News' Linda Douglass points out that a hastily called press conference on this matter by Senators Carl Levin and Ted Kennedy got nearly no coverage yesterday, but they did seem to have something.
The pair released a copy of the formal report that President Bush sent to Congress on January 20, 2003, justifying his reasons for going to war. The report was required by Congress as part of the resolution it passed in September authorizing the president to use force in Iraq if he deemed it necessary.
Mr. Bush was legally required to submit the report prior to using force in Iraq.
The president's signed report cites Iraq's "failure to deal with issues which have arisen since 1998, including … .attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it."
The report was sent 8 days before the State of the Union and several weeks after the CIA had warned the White House against making that claim.
Levin and Kennedy sent a letter to Bush last night which said: "We would like to have copies of all memos from the CIA and other intelligence agencies on this matter, as well as a full explanation of how this statement was included in the January 20 report to Congress and the State of the Union address. We look forward to hearing from you about this important matter".
At the press conference, Levin said "Questions keep piling on top of questions."
One possible response from the administration: The 1/20 report cites Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium but does not mention Africa. Were they talking about some other continent from which Iraq was trying to acquire uranium?
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/24/2003 9:48 AM (GMT -6) | | The Empire strikes Back!!!
Short version:Iraq/Saddam was so evil, we were justified in doing what we could(i.e., manipulating the US public) so we could force a regime-change asap.
dlw
Cheney: Threat Posed by Hussein Justified Invasion
By Deb Riechmann
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, July 24, 2003; 1:00 PM
Ignoring threats posed by Saddam Hussein would have been "irresponsible in the extreme," Vice President Dick Cheney said today, doing his part to defend the Bush administration's mission in Iraq.
Had the Bush administration not acted, Hussein and his sons would still be in power, torture chambers would still exist, mass graves would still be undiscovered, terrorists would still have a safe haven in Iraq and Saddam would still have vast wealth to finance weapons programs, he said.
"Knowing these things," Cheney said, "how could we, I ask, have allowed that threat to stand? These judgments were not lightly arrived at. And all who were aware of them bore a heavy responsibility for the security of America."
Soldiers are still dying in Iraq, and the administration is on the defensive about its justification for going to war. So it wasn't surprising that Cheney, in a speech scheduled on short notice, sought to highlight the president's reasons for invading Iraq. He said the White House was acting on intelligence that suggested Iraq was continuing its weapons programs.
Cheney quoted from an intelligence report that said: "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction program in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
"Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist," Cheney said in the speech to about 200 people at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington.
"Ignoring such information or trying to wish it away, would be irresponsible in the extreme and our president did not ignore that information."
Bush, his top aides and GOP congressional leaders have been aggressively trying to counter embarrassing questions about prewar intelligence and the performance of Bush's national security team. The administration's campaign has focused on how Iraqis have been liberated -- how the war has made the world safer -- and away from questions about Iraqi weapons programs and why no weapons of mass destruction have been found.
That effort has been hampered by an ever-changing White House story -- from first blaming the CIA and then the British to new revelations by Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser, that contradict earlier statements by his boss, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
© 2003 The Associated Press
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/24/2003 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | This article summarizes and analyzes the history of how the controversy over the Bush Administration's inclusion of those 16 words in his speech came into being.
Quite frankly, the Bush-Administration is pulling a Clinton and the forceful apologetic given today by Cheney likely shows who was ultimately behind the decision. Reminds one of the movie, "A Few Good Men" with Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise.
Why Commander in Chief Is Losing the War of the 16 Words
by Dan Balz and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 24, 2003; Page A10
If President Bush's White House is known for anything, it is competence at delivering a disciplined message and deftness in dealing with bad news. That reputation has been badly damaged by the administration's clumsy efforts to explain how a statement based on disputed intelligence ended up in the president's State of the Union address.
How did the White House stumble so badly? There are a host of explanations, from White House officials, their allies outside the government and their opponents in the broader debate about whether the administration sought to manipulate evidence while building its case to go to war against Iraq.
But the dominant forces appear to have been the determination by White House officials to protect the president for using 16 questionable words about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium in Africa and a fierce effort by the Central Intelligence Agency to protect its reputation through bureaucratic infighting that has forced the president's advisers to repeatedly alter their initial version of events.
At several turns, when Bush might have taken responsibility for the language in his Jan. 28 address to the country, he and his top advisers resisted, claiming others -- particularly those in the intelligence community -- were responsible.
Asked again yesterday whether Bush should ultimately be held accountable for what he says, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters, "Let's talk about what's most important. That's the war on terrorism, winning the war on terrorism. And the best way you do that is to go after the threats where they gather, not to let them come to our shore before it's too late."
White House finger-pointing in turn prompted the CIA's allies to fire back by offering evidence that ran counter to official White House explanations of events and by helping to reveal a chronology of events that forced the White House to change its story.
The latest turn came Tuesday, when deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and White House communications director Dan Bartlett revealed the existence of two previously unknown memos showing that Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet had repeatedly urged the administration last October to remove a similar claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.
White House officials and their Republican allies in Congress hope the Hadley-Bartlett briefing will help the administration turn a corner on the controversy, and they plan a counteroffensive to try to put Bush's critics on the defensive. But the administration faces new risks as Congress begins its own investigations, which could bring the bureaucratic infighting into open conflict.
The White House and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are trying to work out ground rules for the collection of information from National Security Council personnel involved in preparing the president's State of the Union address, according to administration and congressional sources.
"A list has gone to the White House and documents have been requested," according to one congressional aide. On that document list are the two memos cited by Hadley and Bartlett from the CIA, dated Oct. 5 and Oct. 6, which contained comments on specific sections of drafts of the president's Oct. 7 speech on the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
Tenet testified yesterday in closed session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and today the CIA inspector general, John L. Helgerson, is scheduled to appear before the Senate intelligence panel to discuss the findings of his ongoing investigation of how the speech was vetted. Tenet was questioned about the State of the Union speech and about the intelligence developed around Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Beyond the memos, one area of potential risk for the administration is an October telephone call from Tenet to Hadley to make certain the offending language had been removed from Bush's Oct. 7 speech. Hadley said he cannot recall whether that issue was discussed with Tenet on Oct. 5, Oct. 6 or Oct. 7, but a senior administration official familiar with the events said it was "most likely" on Oct. 7, the day of Bush's speech. Going to Hadley directly indicated Tenet's fear that his underlings had not been successful.
Another potential problem for the White House is the sharp disagreement between testimony given the committee last Thursday by CIA senior analyst Alan Foley about his conversation with Robert Joseph, a National Security Council staff member, about what was to go into the State of the Union address and how Bartlett described it to reporters Tuesday.
For all the purported discipline and unity within the Bush administration, disputes among members of the national security team have been common, particularly in the run-up to the war with Iraq. Those disputes, however, generally pitted the State and Defense departments against one another, but once Bush made a decision, the combatants generally accepted that and moved on.
What is unusual about this episode is that the combatants are officials at the White House and the CIA -- and that the White House has tried without success to resolve the controversy. The biggest lesson learned so far, said one administration official, is that "you don't pick a bureaucratic fight with the CIA." To which a White House official replied, "That wasn't our intention, but that certainly has been the perception."
White House allies outside the government have expressed surprise at the administration's repeated missteps over the past two weeks, using phrases such as "stumbled," "caught flat-footed" and "can't get their story straight." Said one senior administration official, "These stories get legs when they're mishandled and this story has been badly mishandled."
Joe Lockhart, who was press secretary to President Bill Clinton, said he has been equally surprised by the way this White House has dealt with the controversy. "Their every move has resulted in people being more interested in the story rather than less interested," he said.
Mary Matalin, a former Bush White House adviser, said, "It's impossible to have a consistent message when the facts keep changing. We forsook consistency for honesty, in an effort to be as forthcoming as possible in putting out new facts as they became available."
A senior White House official said there are mitigating circumstances, beginning with the fact that the president was traveling in Africa when the controversy took root, while Tenet was also traveling. The unstable environment in postwar Iraq and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found provided a foundation for more questions over Bush's State of the Union claims. "And you learn it's difficult to control unnamed sources on both sides, including in the White House," he added.
There are plenty of what-ifs about this dispute, the biggest being, what if Bush, while traveling in Africa, had simply taken responsibility for using a disputed claim in his speech, called it a mistake and argued that there was plenty of other evidence to support his determination to remove Hussein from power. Administration officials say that would not have changed things. "[The press] would have asked, how did it get in there," said a White House official involved in the dispute. "This was a process story and [having Bush take responsibility] didn't answer the process questions."
The first crack in the administration came on July 7, the morning Bush was leaving for Africa, when then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters it was wrong to have used the statement in the speech because the administration had learned after the speech was delivered that the claim was based on forged intelligence documents.
Fleischer's statement triggered a barrage of questions that followed the presidential entourage through Africa, and his explanation of what had happened was quickly overtaken by new statements coming from the administration.
While in Africa, Bush and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice publicly pinned the blame on the CIA, a decision that in retrospect was clearly a mistake. Tenet, who had spoken to Rice that morning, issued a planned statement in which he took responsibility.
His statement was wrongly interpreted as his acceptance of sole responsibility. But a careful reading of the three-page statement showed that he only took responsibility for his agency's failure to be more diligent in making sure the language was kept out of the president's speech, and he pointed to National Security Council officials who wanted to keep the language despite the agency's protests.
By the time Bush returned from Africa, a new controversy had erupted after revelations that the White House and the CIA had battled last fall over removing similar language from the Oct. 7 speech.
When the White House attempted last Friday to portray Tenet's intervention in that episode as solely a technical matter involving intelligence sourcing, the CIA responded by letting it be known that Tenet had objected to exactly the same language that was in the State of the Union address.
The fact that it was backed up by memos forced the White House to go through the embarrassment of having Hadley publicly acknowledge he was at fault for not remembering in January that the White House had removed the same language just three months earlier.
Staff writer Mike Allen contributed to this report.
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/27/2003 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | |
U.S. Troops Miss Hussein Security Chief
Death of Marine, 4 Soldiers Brings U.S. Death Toll to 48 Since May 1
advertisement
___ Postwar Iraq ___
___ Latest Post Articles ___
• Myers: Troops 'Undaunted' by Guerrilla-Style Attacks
• Wolfowitz Says U.S. Must Act Against Terrorist Threats Even if Intelligence is 'Murky'
• U.S. Troops Miss Hussein Security Chief
• More News From Iraq
___ Your Questions Answered ___
• Who Is Governing Iraq?
• Who Are the Kurds?
• Who Are the Shiites?
_____ Photo Gallery _____
Eyes on the War
Photojournalists share their personal experiences behind the enduring images of the war in Iraq.
• More Photos: Iraq Eyewitness
___ The War As It Happened ___
• Washington Post coverage from March-April 2003, including articles, videos, photos and opinion.
Subscribe to
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version
Compiled from Wire Reports
Sunday, July 27, 2003; 2:13 PM
U.S. soldiers said they missed catching Saddam Hussein's security chief -- and possibly the former Iraqi president himself -- by a mere 24 hours early Sunday, while a U.S. Marine was killed in a grenade attack south of Baghdad.
Troops stormed three farms in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, in simultaneous pre-dawn raids after receiving a tip that Saddam's new security chief was staying at one of the farm houses, said Lt. Col. Steve Russell, who led the operation by the of the 4th Infantry.
"We missed him by 24 hours," Russell said, adding that residents told soldiers that the man they sought had been at one of the farm houses.
Officials at a city hospital said five bodies had been brought from a house in an upmarket Baghdad neighbourhood on Sunday. Local people at the scene said some of the casualties had been in a car which was fired on by U.S. soldiers as it drove down the street.
"The Americans came here. A woman was wounded. A friend of mine was also wounded and his car set on fire," one young man said.
The military said one U.S. soldier attached to the Marines was killed and one was wounded in the grenade attack just south of Baghdad. The death was the first of the week after one of the bloodiest seven-day periods in the guerrilla war against American forces since President Bush declared major combat in Iraq was over on May 1.
The military said it had no further information on the 2:35 a.m. attack.
The death brought to 48 the number of Americans killed in action in Iraq since May 1. So far 163 U.S. soldiers have died in the war, 16 more than the number of those killed in the 1991 Gulf War.
There had been hope the killings Tuesday of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, Nos. 2 and 3 on the U.S. most-wanted list, might demoralize the resistance. Instead, their deaths appear to have inspired a wave of revenge attacks.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said U.S. officials thought there would be a spike in violence following the sons' deaths, but there also has been a beneficial increase in information coming in from Iraqi informants.
"In the last week alone we've picked up 660 surface-to-air missiles. That's a product of the increased intelligence the Iraqi people are providing," Wolfowitz said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Wolfowitz said that with time Iraqis may give Americans more with sensitive information, which could lead to getting Saddam.
"It takes time for them to trust us to give us the information," Wolfowitz said. "But they're giving us more and more. I think what happened last week with the deaths of those two miserable creatures is encouraging more people to come forward."
Asked whether the Bush administration was confident Saddam would be captured or killed soon, Wolfowitz said: "We're going to go after him until we get him and it's a mistake to put timetables on these things."
Eliminating Hussein could tamp down anti-American violence, too, he said. "Getting rid of Saddam Hussein will have more effect than any single thing we can do."
Four U.S. soldiers were killed Saturday, three in a grenade attack outside a children's hospital in Baqouba, 45 miles northeast of Baghdad, and one in a bomb and rocket-propelled grenade attack just west of the capital near the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
In Tikrit on Thursday, U.S. troops of the 4th Infantry Division captured a group of men believed to include five to 10 of Saddam's bodyguards. After that, soldiers learned that Saddam's new security chief and possibly the dictator himself were staying on one of the farms, Russell said.
"The noose is tightening around these guys," said Col. James C. Hickey, a brigade commander. "They're running out of places to hide, and it's becoming difficult for them to move because we're everywhere. Any day now we're going to knock on their door, or kick in their door, and they know it."
The army would not name the man they had targeted, but said he was believed to have taken over Saddam's security after the June 17 arrest of Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, Saddam's cousin and presidential secretary.
Mahmud, who was No. 4 on the U.S. most wanted Iraqis list, controlled all access to Saddam. He and Saddam's younger son Qusay were believed to be the only two people trusted with knowledge about Saddam's whereabouts.
Hundreds of soldiers, backed by Bradley fighting vehicles, surrounded the farms as Apache attack helicopters hovered above. No shots were fired. About 25 men were in the houses and emerged peacefully. They were briefly detained and released later Sunday.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/30/2003 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | President Bush Takes Personal Responsibility for Speech
Bush Takes Reponsibility for Iraq Claims
President Bush on Wednesday accepted personal responsibility for a controversial portion of last winter's State of the Union address dealing with claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear material in Africa.
"I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely," the president said at a White House news conference where he sought to quell a controversy that has dogged his administration for weeks.
Speaking at his first solo news conference since March, the president said the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons marked progress in assuring the Iraqi people that the old regime was gone forever. Still, he said he doesn't know how close American troops are to finding the deposed dictator.
"Closer than we were yesterday, I guess. All I know is we're on the hunt," he added.
On one simmering domestic issue, the president said he opposes gay marriage, and suggested his administration might propose legislation on the subject.
"I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that," he said.
Despite nearly daily deaths of American troops in postwar Iraq, Bush appealed for patience as Iraqis try to form a new, free society. "I didn't expect Thomas Jefferson to emerge in Iraq in a 90-day period," he said.
Bush said the United States and its allies would "complete our mission in Iraq, We will complete our mission in Afghanistan ... We will wage the war on terror against every enemy that plots against our people."
The president had been asked before about the 16 controversial words in the State of the Union address, and had declined to take personal responsibility. Instead, CIA Director George Tenet did so, followed by a senior White House aide, deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the president said in last winter's nationally televised address...
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/30/2003 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I took this from TheologyWeb. Great satire.
dlw
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men? Fifteen of them Saudi Arabians? hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Good night, Daddy
From my inbox -
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men? Fifteen of them Saudi Arabians? hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Good night, Daddy
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/2/2003 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Taken from yesterday's Lehrer Newshour.
Shields:It also it put behind him the best they could, what has been going on for three weeks. It started off the 16 words in the State of the Union speech; we went through serial suspects.
TERENCE SMITH: Sixteen words in which....
MARK SHIELDS: Sixteen words in which the president attributed the purchase, the attempt to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons to Saddam Hussein, relying upon British intelligence which the CIA had objected to and all the rest.
But we had George Tenet take the bullet first, the CIA Director, then Stephen Hadley. And while nobody was looking -- when Saddam's two sons were killed -- Michael Gerson, the president's speechwriter, took the blame but he kind of got knocked out of the headlines.
DAVID BROOKS: Condi Rice took the blame.
MARK SHIELDS: Condi Rice -- Condi Rice came out of this kind of bad. She talked about it, saying she didn't get a chance to read the memo. She is working for a president who doesn't read memos. I mean, you would think one of the things as a staff person you would do. So I think there was an attempt to put that -- it was three weeks that everybody was involved, was diminished by it politically -- a lot of finger pointing -- blame shifting.
And I think, worst of all, it gave Democrats, from the Republicans' perspective, a sense that wait a minute, this could be the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Maybe we do have a chance in 2004.
TERENCE SMITH: What did the president mean, David, when he said, I take responsibility for what I said -- those famous 16 words? What does that mean?
DAVID BROOKS: It doesn't mean anything. Everyone is taking responsibility. As Mark said, Steven Hadley, Mike Gerson, the pastry chef is going to take responsibility; they can all take responsibility.
We all know what happened; they made a mistake. That claim was illegitimate apparently, but he still is very proud of the justification for the war and he then went on to say I still did the right thing. The other thing that happened on that particular issue was David Kay came out this week, the arms inspector and gave some strong indications of their stuff that he's finding.
TERENCE SMITH: Right. The president asserted that all would come out well in the end. Did he add any evidence to support his justification of going to war in the first place?
MARK SHIELDS: No. What he did was, we have shifting rationales as recently as Friday and in The Washington Post we had a high ranking administration official say it was now stability in the Middle East was the underlying purpose rather than weapons of mass destruction or imminent threat.
The president, I think the other thing that should not be overlooked, he wanted to be optimistic; he wanted to be upbeat about -- both about weapons of mass destruction and about the economy. They had advanced notice that the economic growth is 2.4 percent. And they wanted to get up on that and wanted to make the pitch that it's working, that both his foreign policy... and I think there was an attempt to sort of emulate Reagan there, the idea that we can be upbeat and optimistic.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/5/2003 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | 
quote:
"The next time Bush says we have to take military action because a country is threatening our security, how can we believe him?"
Jerry Harris
Houston, Texas
[SEE: TIME Magazine]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/8/2003 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31496-2003Aug7.html
Bush Team Kept Airing Iraq Allegation
Officials Made Uranium Assertions Before and After President's Speech
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 8, 2003; Page A10
Since last month, presidential aides have said a questionable allegation, that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium for nuclear weapons, made it into President Bush's State of the Union address because of miscommunication between the CIA and Bush's staff.
But by the time the president gave the speech, on Jan. 28, that same allegation was already part of an administration campaign to win domestic and international support for invading Iraq. In January alone, it was included in two official documents sent out by the White House and in speeches and writings by the president's four most senior national security officials.
The White House has acknowledged that it was a mistake to have included the uranium allegation in the State of the Union address. But an examination of how it originated, how it was repeated in January and by whom suggests that the administration was determined to keep the idea before the public as it built its case for war, even though the claim had been excised from a presidential speech the previous October through the direct intervention of CIA Director George J. Tenet.
Dan Bartlett, White House director of communications, said yesterday that the inclusion of the allegation in the president's State of the Union address "made people below feel comfortable using it as well." He said that there was "strategic coordination" and that "we talk broadly about what points to make," but he added: "I don't know of any specific talking points to say that this is supposed to be used."
The allegation appeared in a draft of a speech Bush was to give Oct. 7 to outline the threat that he said Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. In that draft, an unnamed White House speechwriter wrote, "The [Iraqi] regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa."
The statement the Iraqis "had been caught" was described as "over the top" by a senior administration official familiar with the sketchy intelligence on which the statement had been based. Tenet succeeded in having it stricken the day the speech was given on the grounds that intelligence did not support it.
The CIA arranged to have a similar allegation deleted from a speech that John D. Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was to give Dec. 20 before the U.N. Security Council.
Yet in the days before and after the president's State of the Union address, the allegation was repeated by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz and in at least two documents sent out by the White House.
The first of those documents was a legislatively required report to Congress on Jan. 20 on matters "relevant to the authorization for use of military force against Iraq." It referred to Iraq as having failed to report to the United Nations "attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it." The second document, a report distributed to the public Jan. 23 covering Iraq's weapons concealment activities, highlighted Baghdad's failure to explain "efforts to procure uranium from abroad for its nuclear weapons program."
The same day, the op-ed page of the New York Times included a piece by Rice that said Iraq's Dec. 7 declaration of its weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. Security Council "fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad." In a speech that same day before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Wolfowitz said: "There is no mention [in the declaration] of Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from abroad."
Three days later, Powell, in a speech before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, asked: "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?"
And the day after the State of the Union address, Rumsfeld opened a news conference by saying of Hussein: "His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon; it was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
When it came to the State of the Union speech, the White House has said that it was an unnamed speechwriter who reviewed a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq and perhaps a British intelligence dossier and came up with the 16-word sentence that Bush delivered: "The British government has learned Saddam Hussein has recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The NIE, dated Oct. 2, 2002, carried only four paragraphs on the subject, on page 25 of the 90-page document, according to unclassified excerpts released last month.
The first of those paragraphs said: "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake." Support for that characterization was an item saying "a foreign government service reported" that Niger was planning to send several tons of "pure uranium" to Iraq and that, as of early 2001, the two countries "reportedly were still working out arrangements" for as much as 500 tons. A second item said: "Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo."
According to the intelligence official, the "vigorously" language was "quoted verbatim out of a [Defense Intelligence Agency] paper," along with other paragraphs relating to Niger, Somalia and Congo.
The CIA, which had its doubts about the intelligence, did not include the uranium item in the NIE's "key judgments," nor even as one of six elements supporting the key judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, Tenet said in written answers to questions posed by The Washington Post. He added that the four paragraphs, which had originated from the Defense Intelligence Agency, were kept in the NIE for "completeness."
Tenet, in a statement July 11, described the CIA as having only "fragmentary intelligence" related to what he termed "allegations" of Hussein's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa.
The British dossier, published Sept. 24, said in its executive summary: "We judge that Iraq . . . sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear power program that could require it." It did not say the British had "learned" anything about Iraq and uranium. Support for that judgment was the single statement, "There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The CIA suggested that the judgment be removed, but the British maintained then, as they do today, that they have their own source, which has not been disclosed.
Two congressional committees, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the inspectors general of the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon are all investigating how the material got into the president's speech.
There is one congressional query into how other administration officials came to repeat the allegation.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing July 9, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) asked Rumsfeld to supply information for the committee record on why he, on Jan. 29, and the president, the day earlier, had made this "very significant statement" at the same time "the intelligence community knew in the depths of their agency that this was not true."
Nothing had been supplied as of Wednesday, a committee aide said.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/8/2003 8:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
quote:
Originally posted by DLW
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Who cares, whether or not there were really WMD!? There were other, greater reasons to go to war with Iraq namely - freeing the oppressed people from a murderous leader and his pchychopathic and rapist sons - and getting ridding of a leader who would aid terrorists against America and its allies in a heartbeat.
Well Tigress if that is so then those are the reasons that should have been presented to the US people. The ends do not justify the means. Leading our nation to war is a serious matter. There should be serious consequences for manipulating the truth to make the country support a war.
dlw
Yeah, you're right. I haven't had the time to read the articles about this, so I don't know exactly what Bush is being accused of. If he himself conciously lied to the U.S. about knowing that WMD were in Iraq, he should be held accountable. But, maybe HE was lied to about it by others that he thought he could trust. Or maybe I'm just naive.
Well ultimately, the pres. does take responsibility for his administration. I personally believe that Dick Cheney was behind it and that the Bush Admin. would be smart if they dropped him and made Colin Powell vice president.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/8/2003 10:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ModesofThought
Hey Dave,
Thanks for this thread. It has been a very interesting discussion. I can't claim to have read everything, but the satire was fantastic! What ARE you actually suggesting should be done as a consequence for misleading the American public? You probably said it specifically in some portion that I overlooked, but could you summarize here? I agree with you that dropping Cheney and picking up Powell seems a clever move. Do you think it is even being considered?
I also tend to fall to the radical skepticism Greg expressed. It seems that deception is par for the course in politics. Voting seems to have more to do with who's agenda you want to see empowered than it has to do with anything else.
This whole WMD thing really is a serious problem. Even if many Americans choose to ignore it, the world will not. We live in a new political climate now.
Well I wouldn't want to play God or anything , but I could see the statement as meriting an impeachment. Now that won't happen because of the Republican's controlling all parts of the gov't and the process would, as with Clinton, get overwhelmed by partisan politics.
But, I think that if the threat of impeachment hearings were brought up, the Bush Admin. could get pressured into scape-goating Cheney and making him resign and be replaced by Powell.
That would serve as a good pr blow in terms of our relationships with the rest of the world. And we need better relationships with the rest of the world right now to help us with dealing with Iraq. Our current troop deployment is inadequate and we need to keep our armed forces capable of retaliating to another 9-11 style attack.
and plus, it really isn't a good idea to have the US be so predominant in Iraq, since we need checks against our temptation to scurry away with more of the oil money than is needed to pay for the rebuilding.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/8/2003 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | It All Depends on What You Mean by 'Have'
August 8, 2003
By STEVE MARTIN
So if you're asking me did Iraq have weapons of mass
destruction, I'm saying, well, it all depends on what you
mean by "have."
See, I can "have" something without actually having it. I
can "have" a cold, but I don't own the cold, nor do I
harbor it. Really, when you think about it, the cold has
me, or even more precisely, the cold has passed through me.
Plus, the word "have" has the complicated letter "v" in it.
It seems that so many words with the letter "v" are words
that are difficult to use and spell. Like "verisimilitude."
And "envelope."
Therefore, when you ask me, "Did Iraq have weapons of mass
destruction," I frankly don't know what you're talking
about. Do you mean currently? Then why did you say "did?"
Think about "did." What the heck does that mean? Say it a
few times out loud. Sounds silly. I'm beginning to think
it's just the media's effort to use a fancy palindrome,
rather than ask a pertinent question.
And how do I know you're not saying "halve?" "Did Iraq
halve weapons of mass destruction?" How should I know? What
difference does it make? That's a stupid question.
Let me try and clear it up for you. I think what you were
trying to say was, "At any time, did anyone in Iraq think
about, wish for, dream of, or search the Internet for
weapons of mass destruction?"
Of course they did have. Come on, Iraq is just one big salt
flat and no dictator can look out on his vast desert and
not imagine an A-test going on. And let's face it, it
really doesn't matter if they had them or not, because they
hate us like a lassoed shorthorn heifer hates bovine
spongiform encephalopathy.
Finally, all this fuss over 16 lousy words. Shoot, "Honey,
I'm home," already has three, with an extra one implied,
and practically nothing has been said. It would take way
more than 16 words to say something that could be
considered a gaffe. I don't really take anything people say
seriously until they've used at least 20, sometimes 25,
words.
When I was criticized for my comment, I was reluctant to
point out it was only 16 words, and I was glad when someone
else took the trouble to count them and point out that I
wasn't even in paragraph territory. When people heard it
was only 16 words, I'm sure most people threw their head
back and laughed. And I never heard one negative comment
from any of our coalition forces, and they all speak
English, too.
Steve Martin is author of "Shopgirl" and the forthcoming
"The Pleasure of My Company."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/08/opinion/08MART.html?ex=1061380642&ei=1&en=1a473487f3c94ec8
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/8/2003 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | These sorts of actions are why I am supporting Lieberman.
dlw
Iraq Arms Critic Reacts to Report on Wife
August 8, 2003
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 - Joseph C. Wilson IV, a retired
ambassador who was a secret envoy of the Bush
administration to Africa and who publicly voiced doubts
about a reported Iraqi weapons program, says he has become
a target of a campaign to discourage others like him from
going public.
In the prewar effort to uncover information about weapons
in Iraq, Mr. Wilson made a fact-finding trip to Niger in
February 2002 at the request of the Central Intelligence
Agency. His findings challenged contentions in an
unsubstantiated document that Iraq was trying to obtain
nuclear-weapons material from the West African country.
But it was not until after Mr. Wilson made his account
public last month in an op-ed article in The New York
Times, to the intense discomfort of President Bush's aides,
that the White House acknowledged that it had erred in
including the disputed accusations in Mr. Bush's State of
the Union address in January.
Days after the column, another chapter opened. Mr. Wilson's
wife was identified by name as a covert C.I.A. operative in
a column by the conservative columnist Robert Novak, a
disclosure that Mr. Novak has attributed to senior
administration officials.
Officials are barred by law from disclosing the identities
of Americans who work undercover for the C.I.A. That
provision is intended to protect the security of operatives
whose lives might be jeopardized if their identities are
known.
Among those who have cried foul are several Democratic
senators, including Charles E. Schumer of New York, who
have said that if the accusation is true and if senior
administration officials were its source, law enforcement
authorities should seek to identify the officials who
appeared to have violated the law. Mr. Schumer has asked
Robert S. Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, to look into the case.
Mr. Wilson, who as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad in 1990 was
the last American diplomat to meet President Saddam
Hussein, said the events were evidence of distressing
American heavy-handedness.
"The issue was never about her," Mr. Wilson said of his
wife in a telephone interview on Wednesday. "The issue was
about who so badly staffed the president of the United
States that they would put into a State of the Union
address something that was so transparently
unsubstantiable, and this from an administration that came
to office saying it wanted to restore dignity and honor to
the White House. It wasn't to intimidate me, because I'd
already said my piece. Clearly, this was to keep others
from stepping forward."
White House officials have said they would not condone
disclosing any undercover C.I.A. operative.
In the run-up to the war, Mr. Wilson appeared frequently on
television as an expert on Iraq. He freely offered his
opinion that the best American policy would be to postpone
any war and focus on intense international inspections to
find weapons of mass destruction.
That opinion certainly won him no friends in the
administration, which was arguing that the moment for
inspections had passed.
The fact that a retired American envoy had traveled to
Niger to look into an Iraqi connection was acknowledged by
the administration this year. But Mr. Wilson said he had
decided to discuss his role publicly early last month after
concluding that efforts by senior administration officials,
including Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser,
to pass off his findings as having been shared just with
low-ranking intelligence officials were "simply
inconsistent" with the facts that he knew.
"It was pretty clear that it had gotten to the right
people," Mr. Wilson said in the interview.
The deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley,
has publicly taken responsibility for the inclusion in the
State of the Union speech of 16 words that repeated the
disputed reports about Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear
material from Niger.
Mr. Wilson, who had told the C.I.A. and the State
Department after his visit that there was no basis for that
report, said in the interview that he had "tried to avoid
taking a victory lap" after his comments prompted the White
House acknowledgments. But he had begun to speak out again,
in television interviews including one on <object.title
class="Movie" idsrc="nyt_ttl"
value="131090;132576">"Today"</object.title> on NBC, "until
such time as you got those lowlifes over there deciding
they would take some whacks at my wife."
Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is known to friends as an
energy industry analyst. In the interview, Mr. Wilson said
he had no doubt that those who sought to bring his wife
into the controversy intended to sound a warning to others
who might take on the White House on the charged issue of
whether intelligence about Iraq was reshaped or ignored to
fit a political agenda.
Mr. Novak cited administration officials as saying Mr.
Wilson was chosen for the Niger mission because of Ms.
Plame's connection to the Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Wilson said his qualifications - as an Africa expert, a
former ambassador to Gabon and the senior director for
African affairs on the staff of the National Security
Council under President Bill Clinton - made him more than
amply suited for the task.
The broad issue of whether intelligence information about
Iraq, its weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism
was subjected to undue influence is under investigation by
the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence.
Among current intelligence analysts questioned by the
committee staffs, just one, Christian P. Westermann of the
State Department, has been identified by name as having
said Mr. Wilson perceived political pressure in his work on
Iraq. Some other former and current intelligence officials
who have spoken to reporters have made broadly similar
charges.
Mr. Wilson said the Niger trip was prompted by an inquiry
from Vice President Dick Cheney to a C.I.A. briefer. The
conclusion that there was no basis to the report on nuclear
materials was also reached by the United States Embassy in
Niamey, the capital, and by an American general who visited
there about the same time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/08/national/08WEAP.html?ex=1061380584&ei=1&en=02b3bfad9617b289
Bush Misuses Science Data, Report Says
August 8, 2003
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 - The Bush administration persistently
manipulates scientific data to serve its ideology and
protect the interests of its political supporters, a report
by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government
Reform says.
The 40-page report, which was prepared for Representative
Henry A. Waxman, the committee's ranking Democrat, accused
the administration of compromising the scientific integrity
of federal institutions that monitor food and medicine,
conduct health research, control disease and protect the
environment.
On many topics, including global warming and sex education,
the administration "has manipulated the scientific process
and distorted or suppressed scientific findings," the
report said.
"The administration's political interference with science
has led to misleading statements by the president,
inaccurate responses to Congress, altered Web sites,
suppressed agency reports, erroneous international
communications and the gagging of scientists," the report
added.
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, dismissed the
report. He contended that its sponsor, Mr. Waxman, who is
widely known for his aggressive inquiry into the tobacco
industry, was seeking to score political points.
"This administration looks at the facts, and reviews the
best available science based on what's right for the
American people," Mr. McClellan said. "The only one who is
playing politics about science is Congressman Waxman. His
report is riddled with distortion, inaccuracies and
omissions."
Some of the examples from the report's 21 subject areas
have already been reported in the media. They include the
Environmental Protection Agency's decision last year to
delete a section on global warming in its comprehensive
report on the state of the environment and President Bush's
overstatement of the number of stem cell lines available
for research under controls imposed by the administration.
The report's authors say federal agencies have jeopardized
scientific integrity in many ways, including stacking
scientific advisory committees with unqualified officials
or industry representatives, blocking publication of
findings that could harm corporate interests and defending
controversial decisions with misleading information.
With respect to sex education, the report said, the Bush
administration has advanced what the report described as an
unproven "abstinence only" agenda and abolished an
initiative at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention that listed scientifically validated safe-sex
techniques that included using condoms.
On agricultural pollution, the Agriculture Department has
issued tight controls on government scientists seeking to
publish information that could have an adverse impact on
industry, the report said. It cited the case of a
microbiologist, James Zahn, who was denied permission to
publish findings on the dangers of antibiotic-resistant
bacteria near hog farms in the Midwest.
On the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the report said
that Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, a firm advocate of
drilling for oil in the region, misrepresented to Congress
her agency's scientific opinion on how drilling would
affect the region's caribou population. She told lawmakers
most of the caribou calving occurred outside the refuge;
her scientists said the opposite was true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/08/politics/08REPO.html?ex=1061380552&ei=1&en=3b49173be0df6215
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/22/2003 12:56 PM (GMT -6) | | The question is not whether or not it was justified to end Saddam's regime, but why our leaders overexaggerated a relatively minor point to get us to support the war.
And, what sorts of consequences there ought to be for misleading us. For future reference, there ought to be some consequences. I say impeach Cheney!!!! Powell for Vice-President!
dlw
Australia joins England and The United States in manufactured justification
http://www.msnbc.com/news/955884.asp?0dm=-13LN
CANBERRA, Australia, Aug. 22 — The Australian government lied about the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to justify its involvement in the U.S.-led war, an official inquiry into intelligence on Iraq was told on Friday.
A FORMER senior intelligence analyst, Andrew Wilkie, who resigned in March in protest over Australia’s case for war, said Prime Minister John Howard, a close U.S. ally, created a mythical Iraq by dropping ambiguous references in intelligence reports.
“The government lied every time it skewed, misrepresented, used selectively and fabricated the Iraq story...The exaggeration was so great it was pure dishonesty,” Wilkie, formerly of the Office of National Assessment (ONA), told the inquiry.
The ONA is equivalent to the U.S. National Security Agency.
“Key intelligence assessment qualifications like ’probably’, ’could’ and ’uncorroborated evidence suggests’ were frequently dropped. Much more useful words like massive and mammoth were included,” he added.
Controversy has been raging in the United States, Britain and Australia over accusations those governments manipulated intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to justify the war with no evidence yet found of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
Wilkie’s comments to the inquiry are some his strongest yet against Howard’s administration. Since his resignation, Wilkie has made numerous attacks on Howard, embarrassing the Australian leader.
“I don’t know on what he bases those claims. If he has got evidence of that let him produce it, otherwise stop slandering decent people,” Howard told reporters in Adelaide.
“I deny his allegations...ONA has indicated that he had virtually no access to the relevant intelligence.”
PARALLEL TO BRITISH INQUIRY
The Australian parliamentary hearing parallels an inquiry into the information the British government used to make its case for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein.
Prime Minister Tony Blair and Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon are due to give evidence next week at the inquiry into the suicide of weapons expert David Kelly, who was caught up in a row over the prime minister’s case for war with Iraq.
Howard has said he made the right decision to send a 2,000-strong force to the Gulf despite initial public qualms, but said that intelligence could not have provided absolute proof of the Iraqi threat.
Wilkie said he believes Iraq had a disjointed weapons of mass destruction program, but said the United Nations should have been given more time to search Iraq.
He said the Australian intelligence community had done an acceptable job in judging the threat posed by Iraq, but was sometimes biased by U.S. intelligence, government pressure and politically correct intelligence officers.
“The government was prepared to deliberately exaggerate the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and terrorism threat so as to stay in step with the United States. The Australian government misled the Australian public over Iraq,” Wilkie said.
HARD INTELLIGENCE RARE
Former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler told the inquiry on Friday that 85-90 percent of specific, hard intelligence he received on Iraq from countries including the United States and Britain was accurate, but also very rare.
Butler, who led the U.N. weapons inspection team in Iraq between 1997 and 1999, said the more voluminous, speculative intelligence, such as intercepted messages and pictures taken by spy planes, tended to be less than 50 percent accurate.
“I’m sure once (Iraq) is finally swept then there will be some weapons of mass destruction found. I don’t think they would have destroyed all of them or could have. Let no-one doubt they had a weapons of mass destruction program,” Butler said.
The Australian inquiry, some of which will be held in secret because of the confidential nature of some intelligence, is due to report back to the conservative government in December.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/15/2003 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | By Tom Regan
csmonitor.com
updated 12:10 p.m. ET September 15, 2003
Britain, US postpone WMD report for lack of evidence
Liberal critics had hinted that US President George Bush would try to use it as his "September surprise"; a report by the Iraq Survey Group which would prove that Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction. But now the Sunday Times of London, and other publications, say that the report has been delayed "indefinitely" because the group was unable to get any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
David Kay, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, had hinted in July that he had seen enough to convince him that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did have a program to produce weapons of mass destruction. But last week British officials said they believed Kay had been "kite-flying" and that no hard evidence had been uncovered.
The Sunday Times report comes two days after NBC reported that the search for WMD in Iraq had "been a bust."
"He [David Kay] has not found the kinds of things the administration expected to find - large quantities of biological and chemical weapons or evidence that were destroyed prior to the war," David Albright, a former UN weapons' inspector, told NBC News.
The National Post (of Canada) reports that senior UN weapons inspectors now think that Mr. Hussein may have been telling the truth when he said he had no weapons of mass destruction. "With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991, may well be the truth," said recently retired UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.
"[The US and Britain] would have hoped and they would have been happy to see if we had said, 'Here Iraq has violated, here they have, here is the smoking gun. We have found it," Mr. Blix said. "And when we didn't do that, well, then they were disappointed and then they overinterpreted their own intelligence."
News 24 of South Africa reports that other ex-inspectors now believe that the notorious "unaccountables" (weapons Iraq said they could not account for) may have been no more than paperwork glitches left behind when Iraq destroyed banned chemical and biological weapons after the first Gulf War.
Bush administration officials continued to defend their WMD claims. During the weekend Vice President Dick Cheney said WMD would be found in Iraw. In a speech last Friday to soldiers returning from Iraq, President Bush repeated his charge that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The interpretation of intelligence about WMD has once again become a hot topic in Britain. The Guardian reports that British PM Tony Blair was definitely warned by his intelligence services not to exaggerate claims about WMD in Iraq, or else he would misrepresent the situation.
Also, a new government report said that the same intelligence services warned Blair that it was more likely terrorists would get their hands on WMD if the US and Britain invaded Iraq (because of the confusion resulting from an invasion), than if they did not.
The BBC reports that Mr. Blair's decision to ignore the findings of his intelligence service was defended by Health Minister John Reid, one of Blair's most loyal supporters. But no sooner had these reports surfaced when other damaging stories appeared about the Blair government. Excerpts from "Blair's War," a new book by political journalist John Kampfner, were published in the Mail on Sunday.
The book alleges that days before the Iraq war began, Britain's foreign secretary Jack Straw asked Prime Minister Tony Blair not to send British troops to the conflict. Instead, Mr. Straw wanted Britain to offer the US "moral support." The British Foreign Office issued a statement Sunday that did not deny the story, but said Straw remains convinced that military action against Iraq was the right decision.
The Independent reports that Blair's decision to go to war is being questioned by Labour Party aides throughout Britain, many of whom believed Blair lied to them about the war. The Independent also said it is likely that Blair's Iraq policies will be condemned by his own party when it holds its annual convention next week.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| 71 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:15 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|