Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 58

Go ahead and post the rest of your thoughts.

He most certainly DID have strong connections with all of the Islamofascists. Start with Hamas and Hezbollah. He publicly funded them, including $50,000 bounties to any families of suicide bombers in Israel. Add that to the many documented ties to Al Qaeda. Add that to the fact that there were terrorist training camps documented in Iraq. One of them had a mockup of a jumbo jet, where terrorists trained how to take over the plane. Hmmm. Wonder where that could have been used.

By keeping the West off balance, under the "leadership" of Mr. Clinton, and the full support of Germany, France, and Russia, he was able to oppress his own people with impunity, helped fund the atomic research in Pakistan, and develop (and use) other WMDs within his own country and export them to other countries (notably to Syria, where some were recently sent into Jordan, and Jordanian officials were just barely able to stop their use).

Iraq War Post

I'll respond to your recent remarks after finishing my prepared post (in probalbly two more installments after this one).

Bush made the decision to invade Iraq by the spring of 2002, and the campaign to sell the war to the American people began that summer. The NIE Report (National Intelligence Estimate) was hurriedly put together by October not to provide information to the president on which to base a decision, but to persuade the people's representatives in Congress to vote for the Iraqi War Resolution shortly before the midterm elections.

Ray McGovern, a spokesman for Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, wrote this in response to CIA Director George Tenet's February 5 2004 speech:

"What all should know is that the Bush administration's decision for war against Iraq came well before any intelligence estimate. There is ample evidence that that decision was made, at the latest, by spring 2002.

That there was no NIE before that speaks volumes. During my 27 years of service as a CIA analyst, never was a foreign policy decision of that magnitude made without FIRST commissioning a National Intelligence Estimate. Why did Tenet not take the initiative and see that one was done? Surely, if he did not know that decisions on war and peace were being made at the White House and Pentagon in early 2002, he was the only one in Washington so unaware.

There was no NIE because Tenet realized that an honest one would show how little the intelligence community knew about the threat from Iraq and would hardly support a case for war. And so, consummate bureaucrat that he is, he kept his head down for as long as he could."
Link to article:
https://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9917

For more information on the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...%20for%20Sanity

CIA Director George Tenet, with his job on the line in the wake of the 9/11 intelligence failure, gave the White House what it wanted: a report featuring the most dire assessments of Iraq's WMD capabilities, with the caveats and dissenting opinions featured less prominently.

Nevertheless, in regards to the alleged alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda, there was little disagreement in the U.S. intelligence community. Even the 2002 NIE Report, which was heavily slanted towards making the strongest possible case for invading Iraq, had this to say:

"¢ Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.
Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks-more likely with biological than chemical agents-probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

"¢ The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.
Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida-with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States-could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

"¢ In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

Link to 2002 NIE Report:
https://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html

The report basically says that Saddam was unlikely to Attack the United States with WMD unless he was about to be invaded and had nothing left to lose. Only if 'sufficiently desperate" might he take the "extreme step of assisting the Islamic terrorists." In other words, an invasion of Iraq might provoke a deadly collaboration that did not yet exist (a good reason for not invading).

The White House knew of these assessments both before and after the NIE Report was issued. Nevertheless, Bush continually made statements in nationally televised speeches and press conferences asserting that Iraq and al Qaeda would collaborate against us.

This commentary in WorldNetDaily (by Paul Sperry, who voted for Bush in 2000) makes it very clear that Bush lied:
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=34930
quotes by Bush featured in the commentary:

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

"Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints." The terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaeda members."

"This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaeda," (referring to Saddam) "This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaeda as a forward army."

"Used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror "¦ Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home."

In his March 6 2003 press conference, Bush mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks nine times, Saddam 40 times, and Osama zero, effectively morphing Osama into Saddam.
Link to text of press conference:
https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/...ain543108.shtml

This helps to explain why 71 percent of Americans believed the Bush administration implied that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, and why so many Americans mistakenly blur the distinction between Iraq and al Qaeda.

(to be continued ... )

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

Thanks AGene. It looks like it will take one more poat after this one.

It's possible that Bush actually believes what he says; it is well known that he rarely reads reports himself. The question is, which is worse - that the president of the United States knowingly lies, or that he is inexcusably uninformed or misinformed?

One of his most bizarre statements to the press came on July 25, 2003 after a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program?
And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."
Link (quote near bottom of page):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030714-3.html

This statement is bizarre because it is a well known fact the inspectors had indeed been "let in," and that they were forced to leave by the impending invasion. Amazingly, Bush's statement received very little attention in American media. He has been known to misspeak, so they just let it pass.

But then again in January this year, during a visit by the president of Poland, he repeated this nonsense:

"And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."
Link:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040127-3.html

I don't know whether to characterize these statements as lies or ignorance. Either way, it's frightening when the man who commands the most powerful military in history is either unaware of such important facts, or feels he can lie about it with impugnity. Mendacity or ignorance - take your pick.

Other members of the Bush administration cannot so easily have their lies excused as misstatements or ignorance. They systematically exaggerated every piece of information (no matter how unreliable the source) that supported their case for war, and ignored whatever didn't. They repeatedly stated as fact there was "no doubt" Iraq possessed huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

The first UN inspection regime (1991-1998) was able to account for 90-95% of Iraq's prewar stockpiles having been destroyed. Chemical and biological weapons have a limited shelf life and for Saddam to possess usable weapons in 2003, ongoing production facilities would be necessary. There was no solid proof of this, and most information came from unreliable exile groups. There was plenty of room for doubt, but the Bush administration made the following statements:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- George W. Bush, Sept. 12, 2002

"The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Bush Oct. 7, 2002.

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that would be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using the UAVs for missions targeting the United States." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"We know for a fact there are weapons there." -- Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -- Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -- Bush, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly." -- Fleischer, March 21, 2003.

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the -- our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind." -- Bush, July 17, 2003

One of the best articles explaining the Bush administration's approach to intelligence on Iraq was written last June, and originally appeared in The New Republic magazine. Here is a key paragraph:

The CIA and other intelligence agencies believed Iraq still possessed substantial stocks of chemical and biological weapons, but they were divided about whether Iraq was rebuilding its facilities and producing new weapons. The intelligence community's uncertainty was articulated in a classified report from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in September 2002. "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] actions," the agency reported. "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has--or will--establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

repeat: DIA declared there was NO RELIABLE INFORMATION
Link to full article:
https://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703A.shtml

The defection and testimony of Hussein Kamel (who was in charge of Iraq's weapons programs) is typical of the cherry-picking and half-truths. Kamel's testimony about Iraq's pre-Gulf war WMD programs was cited repeatedly by the Bush administration. What they failed to mention however, was that Kamel also testified he had ordered the destruction of weapons and production facilities after the war.
Link:
https://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

(to be contunued ... )

Page 58 Iraq War Post

Thanks again AGene; here is my final installment:

Neoconservatives in the Bush administration set up an operation in the Pentagon called the "Office of Special Plans," the purpose of which was to bypass the usual analysis process and funnel raw intelligence directly to policymakers in the White House. The CIA would normally assess the intelligence in order to screen out uncorroborated and fraudulent information, but the neocons wanted any piece of information - no matter how unreliable - they could use to make their case for war. Unsubstantiated claims made by Ahmed Chalabi's exile group (Iraqi National Congress) were treated as fact. The INC had a vested interest in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and was eager to tell the Bush administration what it wanted to hear. This "intelligence" has predictably turned out to be mostly fabrication and lies.

Karen Kwiatkowski, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force with over 20 years service to her country, felt it was her duty to go public with the corruption of the intelligence process she witnessed firsthand at the Office of Special Plans:
https://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/...veon/index.html

This article written by Seymor Hersh explains how the Office of Special Plans 'stovepiped" flawed intelligence to the White House:
https://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons are far and away the most dangerous and destructive. It was the threat of a "mushroom cloud" more than anything else that struck fear into the American people and persuaded Congress to authorize the president to go to war.

Perhaps the most notorious lie told by Bush were the 14 words in his 2003 State of the Union Address:

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

The White House already knew the allegation that Saddam attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger was based on crudely forged documents, so they carefully phrased the statement "The British government has learned." But it's still a lie, because "learn" implies the acquisition of fact.

Seymour Hersh expertly tells the tale of the forgeries and how they were used by the Bush White House:
https://newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030331fa_fact1

Joseph Wilson, who was in charge of the U.S. embassy in Iraq at the time of the first Gulf war (and was called by the first president Bush "a true American hero" for his successful efforts to evacuate Americans from Iraq) was sent to Niger in February 2002 at the request of vice president Dick Cheney's office to ascertain whether the uranium allegation had any merit. After thoroughly investigating the matter, he reported there was no truth to the allegation. When the Bush administration continued to push the lie, he felt it was his duty to set the record straight, and went public:
https://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

The response of the White House was to attack Mr. Wilson; or more accurately, his wife. Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative specializing in efforts against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (something Bush team supposedly cares a great deal about). They leaked her identity to the press, which ruined her operations and imperiled the lives of the human contacts she worked with:
https://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Valerie_Plame

The other major piece of evidence cited by the Bush administration as proof of an Iraq nuclear program were the aluminum tubes, supposedly for centrifuges to enrich uranium. There was disagreement within the intelligence community about the purpose of these tubes, with the foremost experts in the U.S. Department of Energy concluding the tubes were ill-suited for centrifuges but were perfect for conventional (legal) rocket bodies. Nevertheless, the Bush administration touted these tubes as further proof that Iraq was building nukes:

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

"And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest ... is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes," -- Dick Cheney on CNN Sept. 8, 2002

The tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." - Condoleeza Rice, also on CNN

The Union of Concerned Scientists makes the case against the tubes:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/r...cfm?pageID=1351

Before the UN inspectors were forced by Bush to leave Iraq, they had yet to complete their evaluation of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. However, they were very close to concluding the extensive facilities required for producing nuclear weapons did not exist in Iraq:

"To conclude: we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."
https://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm

But Dick Cheney wouldn't take no for an answer. On March 16, 2003 he said on NBC to Tim Russert:
"we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons"

Cheney later said he meant "reconstituted nuclear weapons program," but even that declaration exceeds any objective assessment of the available evidence.

And this is the essential characteristic of their lies. The Bush administration was not objective. They had decided to invade Iraq, and were interested only in whatever supported their case for war. They systematically misrepresented the available intelligence and deceived the American people into believing Iraq posed a "grave and gathering threat" when in fact Iraq had been thoroughly contained for more than a decade. Iraq was not actively producing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, nor did they have an operational alliance with al Qaeda. The intelligence available at the time showed this, or at the minimum cast serious doubts.

The Bush administration's statements were presented as fact, expressing "no doubt." To put it bluntly, they lied.

Finally, I leave you with the 10 Appalling lies we were told about Iraq:
https://www.alternet.org/story/16274

Iraq War Post

*Posts Deleted*

A General Note: We understand that members are posting random messages to help another member post, but if you are going to do so then please respond to the subject matter of the thread otherwise it defeats the purpose of the two post rule.

MartinEden you may wish to consider upgrading your account if you wish to post lengthy threads or use the forum Blog which enables you to post unrestricted.

Post War Iraq

well your question is interesting to me been that I was involved with its process.... so here goes! The ppl of Iraq have lived through a state of living that is unpleasent to say the least for most American.They have lived their lives without much change in their culture. Your question should have two or more right answers because it depends on the veiwer of the problem. See the goverment is only aloud by its ppl. If they are taught to call black what we call white they nor we are wrong when we dissagree in its vocabulary only in its describtion of who is listening. In other words rights and wrong can only be defined in this case by the person living it. What the iraqy ppl are living now any disconfort or pleasure is the same as they have lived in thousands of years ago..... we are just another pebble in their lifes. and i love the smilies hehe

Post War Iraq - Page 58

MartinEden, you have done well to provide quotes backing your position on the presidential debate. You have also done well in quoting sentences and statements that are taken out of context which when read in full paint a different picture. Unfortunately, the sources of your quotes have been from notorious liberal sites and Nighthawk has done a good job of quoting from strong conservative sites. This upcoming election is about picking your poison, and frankly, I would prefer to stand behind a person who is willing to stand behind his opinions and beliefs even if it meant his approval rating has dropped almost 50 points since post 9-11, than a candidate and his running mate who consistently voted for Bush's invasion of Iraq, military spending and deployment and who post 9-11 made the same allegations that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists and WMD, and now, all of a sudden is singing a different song.
If I remember right John Edwards was one of the people on the SIC (Senate Intelligence Committee) who recently approved the report on invading Iraq, which clearly states there is no evidence that Bush applied pressure on CIA operatives to produce information that would build a case for invading Iraq. Rockefeller is another Democrat on that committee.
Here are some famous quotes from our beloved Democrats who now refuse to acknowledge that Iraq and Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks and WMD:

ref https://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10056

Bill Clinton 1998

John Kerry Jan 2003

John Kerry Oct 2002

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 58

malexander, thank you for posting those quotes. I've seen most of them before, but I appreciate when someone can bolster their argument with more than bold assertions. You say that Nighthawk has quoted from strong conservative sites, but he hasn't offered links. I need to evaluate both the facts and the rhetoric in order to determine the validity of the offering. I do not exclusively visit "leftist" sites.

Many from the right are strongly opposed to the Bush foreign policy. The CATO Institute is the think-tank of the Libertarian Party. I found these two analyses compelling:
https://www.cato.org/dailys/03-05-03.html
https://www.cato.org/dailys/07-07-03.html

Patrick J. Buchanan has long been an "arch conservative." This is what he has to say about the invasion of Iraq:
https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34598

I agree that many Democrats have been duplicitous. They jumped on the bandwagon of Saddam fear-mongering when there was no political risk in doing so (to bolster their tough-on-national-security-credentials, no doubt), then made political hay when the threat turned out to be bogus.

Kerry has been fairly consistent in his position that he voted for the Iraq War Resolution with the understanding that Bush would enlist broad support and choose war as a last resort. I disagreed with Kerry's vote, but I am outraged beyond words at what the Bush administration has done. He simply has to go, and in my opinion Kerry is by far the lesser of evils.

Standing behind a belief in and of itself is not necessaeily commendable. What is the belief, and how was it formed? What are the consequences of the actions taken as a result of that belief? What does it say about a leader who clings to his belief when facts no longer support it?

One of the axioms of American politics is the people prefer a leader who is strong and wrong than one who is weak and right. There may be some truth in this, and I think it is very unfortunate because strength applied in the wrong direction can have disastrous consequences. A clever enemy uses the larger foe's own strength against him, which the jihadists have managed to do.

I don't give a damn about Republicans versus Democrats. They are both beholden to the financiers of their campaigns, and have ill-served the people. Our political system is in serious need of change. I care about my country and its future. I'm not happy with Kerry, but I have spent an inordinate amount of time since 9/11 learning everything I can (from more than just "leftist" sites) and I see Bush and his neoconservative ideologues as a bigger threat to our nation's future than any outside enemy.