Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 16

Where are the WMD?

This is going to be interesting to say the least. The funny thing about being President of the US is most of your decisions are based on people's info not related to the Presidency. So if you vouch for them and they are wrong, then you are...

BUSH VOWS TO 'REVEAL THE TRUTH' ON IRAQI WEAPONS

President Bush, back home after a trip to the Middle East, is facing growing
criticism and calls for congressional hearings about his administration's
pre-war assertions on the threat posed by Iraq.

Iraq War Post

Well, critisism and stuff are okay but I want to see real pressure, I real want to see what he is going to say about and I want to see Americans using their democracy and free of speech to make him say what really caused him to attack Iraq without having enough evidence.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

They are getting really desperate to find Saddam, they are even using Indian scouts going as far back as WWII:

NAVAJOS, OTHERS UTAHNS LOOKING FOR SADDAM'S REMAINS
Navajos from Utah's Blanding area -- some with links to World War II's "code
talkers" -- and other members of a Spanish Fork-based Utah National Guard combat
engineering unit are helping search for possible remains of Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein.
https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...38329%2C00.html

IRAQ'S PUZZLES PESTER U.S.
The Pentagon's intelligence service reported last September that it had no
reliable evidence that Iraq had chemical agents in weaponized form, officials
said today.
https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...38463%2C00.html

Page 16 Iraq War Post

It starts to show how amazingly shallow the US intelligence service is ...... they have no idea where any WMD is, whether Saddam (or Osama) is dead or alive, and now, Chemical Ali .... once declared dead, now speculated to be alive. Kinda gives you the sense that someone, somewhere is feeding all sort of false info to the gullible Bush.

I think he is an easily manipulated president .... and most probably by the Israeli govt.

Iraq War Post

QUOTE

I think he is an easily manipulated president .... and most probably by the Israeli govt.

I believe all President's have to rely on their administration's info since they cannot go out there and do it themselves. It is a matter of a judgement call and it worked because of 9/11. If 9/11 did not happen I do not think there would be any war now. As far as Israel being the major influence, I doubt that since Israel seems forced to abide by the bidding of the US as Sharon takes the heat, but that is a nother thread. The word to use here might be... exaggerated. No one doubts that Saddam had to go, but the world questions the 'rush' the US had in making him go.

BLAIR AIDE ADMITS IRAQ INTELLIGENCE WAS MISHANDLED
A top aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote to the head of Britain's
intelligence service earlier this spring conceding that the government's
presentation of a report on Iraqi arms was mishandled and promising that "far
greater care" would be taken with files in the future so as not to discredit the
spy agency's work, a British newspaper said Sunday.
https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...38966%2C00.html

Post War Iraq

QUOTE

I think he is an easily manipulated president .... and most probably by the Israeli govt.

I'm not sure about being manipulated by the Israeli Govt...after all in my opinion, they don't have much say in Bush's decisions. I think the misinformation comes from the people around Bush, his secretary and staff. But he's not silly, he's a very smart man who knows perfectly what he's doing...so to think that somebody else is heating up his head...hmmm...don't really think so.
I still waiting for them to say where are the weapons of mass destructions, the whole wide world still waiting for it!.

QUOTE

No one doubts that Saddam had to go, but the world questions the 'rush' the US had in making him go.

Well, I don't care about the 'rush' because definetly in my opinion Saddam was supposed to be out of power years and years ago...what I question is the proves the USA had in order to accomplish that goal. If you all notice, the reason they take him out was the famous weapons of mass destruction, why? because was the only possibility that the USA had in look for worldwide support since such weapons could constitute a threat. The weapons was just the excuse to look for support, but they perfectly know was not the real reason for attacking Iraq. That's why they didn't bother so much about where these weapons are but at the same time I don't think they measure the pressure they would get after everything was over.

Post War Iraq - Page 16

Now here is a very interesting twist once again brought to us via ABC Nightline News:

TONIGHT'S FOCUS: Remember all of the reports after the war in Iraq about the museums being looted? How priceless antiquities were lost because U.S. troops didn't protect them? Well, it turns out that the truth is quite different. Meanwhile, those same troops, who were supposed to be heading home soon, have been sent to the most dangerous town in Iraq.

It was seen as one of the first major failures of the U.S. rule of post-Saddam Iraq. In the wave of looting that engulfed Baghdad after Saddam fell, the museums were supposed to have been badly hit. Remember, Iraq is the home of Babylon, the cradle of civilization. Thousands of priceless antiquities were supposed to have been lost while American troops stood by and did nothing. It was all over the press, Nightline included. Now it's an old cliche that truth is the first casualty in war. And as ABC News correspondent Hillary Brown will report from Baghdad tonight, the truth behind this story is somewhat different. It turns out that almost all of the pieces are safe. They were hidden away by the museum staff for safekeeping, including some amazing treasures said to rival the treasures from King Tut's tomb. They were hidden in a vault that was then flooded to protect it from looters. But the bottom line here? The museum staff apparently lied, in part to discredit the American troops. So we'll reexamine this whole story again.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 16

What Bennett says is very true. Which way do you think it will turn in Iraq? More democracy and peace or more terrorism?

BENNETT SAYS LOT AT STAKE IN IRAQ
Sen. Bob Bennett, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, sees Iraq as a
domino that is about to fall -- either tipping other Middle East countries as
dominoes toward democracy or toward more terrorism and disaster.
https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...39540%2C00.html

Again from Nightline:

TONIGHT'S FOCUS: He has them. The danger is imminent. We have to act now. Or not. In the run-up to the war with Iraq, the question of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was a central focus. But none have been found, and increasingly, there are questions about whether the intelligence was just wrong, or perhaps more troubling, was manipulated to serve a political end.

The business of intelligence-gathering is unlike any other. You have to deal with unsavory people. Are you dealing with an agent, a double agent, or a triple agent? Okay, maybe I've seen too many movies, but it is, for the most part, a subjective business. The analysts have to look at what information they have, and fill in the gaps. There have been spectacular successes over the years, and equally spectacular failures.

So what to make of the whole debate of Saddam's weapons programs? It's been taken as gospel since before the first Gulf War that he had them. After all, he used chemical weapons against his own people, and against Iran in the devastating war between the two countries. U.N. inspectors swarmed over Iraq, looking for the weapons that everyone seemed to know existed, they just needed to be found. Going back over the statements by the administration in the run-up to the war, there is no uncertainty about it. He has them, and so he has to go. Now though, since the weapons haven't been found, now the questions are a little more troublesome.

Again, intelligence is a subjective business. But the charge is that the administration, in its drive towards a war it clearly wanted to wage, eliminated or ignored the ambiguities or uncertainties. In other words, the intelligence books were cooked. In a couple of glaring cases, information that had been questioned was presented as fact, including statements by President Bush in his State of the Union address this year. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence unit, reportedly because he was unhappy with what he was hearing from the CIA. So again that question, did the administration simply hear what it wanted to hear?